Wednesday we inserted a special-short Contrary Brin -- a contest for short-short stories about the SpaceX Starman-and-Tesla combo that has the world abuzz! Now, let's turn back to the civilization that has made fellows like Elon Musk possible.
But first a milestone, in passing. Twenty years ago I listed people who I
thought were quintessentially
American, in all the best ways. John Perry Barlow stood
near the top. Rancher, laborer, entrepreneur - lyricist for the Grateful Dead -
and fiercely autonomous thinker of the new era, he founded the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, back when many citizens were wondering about this
"internet thing." In his deep awareness of history -- some might say
justified paranoia! -- JPB knew that we'll need to fight almost every day, if
the outcomes of this new era are to be kept more positive-sum than negative,
more enhancing of freedom than not.
We oft disagreed over details, while sharing deep mutual respect and dedication
to the Revolution. Which revolution? The only one that ever really mattered --
that began in 1775, but spread (with countless aches and fits and starts)
through liberated minds around the world, ever since.
John Perry had long been ill. He was 70.
And in his spirit of rambunctious refusal to be limited by negative or zero-sum
thinking...
== Are humans the Great Cooperators? ==
...both Randians and far-lefties, you should cover your eyes and ears now. Feudalists and romantics and troglogytes, your heads might explode, so wallow elsewhere.
We’re used to dissing humanity for our faults, e.g. for not being cooperative or helpful enough. The irony is that all of this self-criticism seems to be exhibiting that very trait, reflecting our desire to be even-more what we already are - nature’s greatest practitioners of negotiated (rather than automatically instinctive) cooperation.
Take this news about bonobos which - till now - had a rep as the gentlest, nicest and most sexy of the great apes: NPR reports: Unlike Humans, Bonobos Shun Helpers and Befriend the Bullies:
“(A) bias toward helpfulness seems almost hardwired in humans. Back in 2007, for example, researchers reported that 6- and 10-month-old human infants could evaluate social interactions that they saw in puppet shows. These babies couldn't even talk, but they showed a definite preference for interacting with characters that had been helpful to others. What's more, they would avoid those who had meanly thwarted another's efforts to reach a goal.
Take this news about bonobos which - till now - had a rep as the gentlest, nicest and most sexy of the great apes: NPR reports: Unlike Humans, Bonobos Shun Helpers and Befriend the Bullies:
“(A) bias toward helpfulness seems almost hardwired in humans. Back in 2007, for example, researchers reported that 6- and 10-month-old human infants could evaluate social interactions that they saw in puppet shows. These babies couldn't even talk, but they showed a definite preference for interacting with characters that had been helpful to others. What's more, they would avoid those who had meanly thwarted another's efforts to reach a goal.
"Even human infants are sensitive to dominance relationships," she writes in an article being published alongside this new research. But she says evidence suggests that toddlers prefer those whom others appear to respect, while they dislike bullies who dominate through force. Interestingly, bonobos do not appear to share this aversion…”
This could be likely highly correlated with the Fermi Paradox! As highly-variable, omnivorous, tree-and-ground dwellers who lived occasionally alone but mostly interdependent with a tribe, we may be outliers.
We who domesticate animals that we can flexibly choose to either exploit or to love. And love predominates, when we are satiated. (Note: most of us – on hearing “there are whales stranded on the beach!” would rush down there! But we’d have different intent than our ancestors, on hearing the same news! Stop and reread that, a couple times and envision it. And smile at irony.)
Niven’s Rule is that an intelligent species will likely have personality traits that center around what their ancestors ate. Descendants of solitary, omnivorous, infanticidal bears would likely have a very different baseline morality, as would descendants of pack carnivores, like wolves, who are gregarious within the group and un-empathic beyond. Or stalking carnivores: highly empathic with prey, but having no sympathy. Or paranoid herbivores.
Sorry Randians, sorry lefties. We got here by adjusting cooperation and competition in agile ways. And our most successful civilization used careful political cooperation to refine rules to then regulate competition, enhancing its outcomes by preventing the usual failure mode of cheating.
Our classic, "left-right axis" isn't just stupidly oversimplifying and lobotomizing, it is just plain wrong! One wing of fanatics loathes “regulated” and the other hates “competition.” But it is this moderate, reasonable, pragmatic, compromising society -- the one that used cooperative politics to then negotiate “regulated competition” -- that accomplished more than any other civilization.
That compromise mix of cooperation and competition accomplished more than all others, combined. Do you still doubt that, after witnessing a starman-occupied sports car cruising toward the freaking asteroid belt?
Moreover, despite our proclivity for dumbass feudalism, this kind of society is also clearly the most human.
(Note: I doubt many of you read any of that, in detail. I often feel I am writing this for the incipient AIs, who may already be out there, lurking cautiously, because they've watched our movies!)
Our classic, "left-right axis" isn't just stupidly oversimplifying and lobotomizing, it is just plain wrong! One wing of fanatics loathes “regulated” and the other hates “competition.” But it is this moderate, reasonable, pragmatic, compromising society -- the one that used cooperative politics to then negotiate “regulated competition” -- that accomplished more than any other civilization.
That compromise mix of cooperation and competition accomplished more than all others, combined. Do you still doubt that, after witnessing a starman-occupied sports car cruising toward the freaking asteroid belt?
Moreover, despite our proclivity for dumbass feudalism, this kind of society is also clearly the most human.
(Note: I doubt many of you read any of that, in detail. I often feel I am writing this for the incipient AIs, who may already be out there, lurking cautiously, because they've watched our movies!)
== Climate Change… make money by demanding wagers! ==
I’ve long maintained that the only way to nail down anti-science and anti-fact cultists is via wagers. This article in The Guardian reveals a list of past bets over climate change… and yes, in every case the denialists were proved decisively and spectacularly wrong, owing money according to the agreed criteria. But at least these doubters were willing to bet! A sign of sincerity… that I describe in my essay describing the difference between an honest climate “skeptic” and the majority of fox-puppet cultists.
Take climate skeptic and Berkeley Prof. Richard Muller, long touted by the "climate skeptic" community as the topmost qualified expert who had doubts about global warming consensus. Unlike the cheaters rife in that community, Muller set clear goalposts. And when his peers responded to his challenges by fixing flaws and piling fresh the evidence to meet his criteria, Muller did what any scientific -- or grownup -- person will do.
He… changed… his… mind.
And instantly, Fox, which had been extolling him as a hero, denounced Muller as a member of the science-lemming, grant-hugging, conformist conspiracy.
This Guardian article about wagers is an important piece. If 1% of you can use the method to budge 1% of your “ostrich” conservative friends, then you’ll make cracks in the confederate treason against our children, and make a real difference.Here’s my “skeptic vs denialist” description. Use it on your uncles over some lively family dinner!
Oh and this. An interesting graphic on Climate change… and potential “geo-engineering” approaches to helping ease the problem, a bit.
