|
Eripsa posted:I think you are identifying a difficult problem with the system, ranking the relative importance of all the products, but I don't think this is a fatal problem in my system, and in fact I think there are rather elegant solutions within my system for dealing with it. To use your example, people might spend a minimal amount of time taking a heart medication, but presumably that medication is being used for extended periods of time. Say I am taking a 24-hour heart medication, and I must take one every day. Well, then, I'm spending basically ALL MY TIME with this medication, and you should expect to see use values reflect that. The fact that the actual popping the pill in my mouth takes a few second is not itself a measure of use. OK, take the epipen example instead of the heart medication: the epipen is critical to preserving life, but is only used once every six years. Nor does your method account at all for the difference in resources that have gone into making an object--a car requires considerable amounts of resources, while my pillow does not. However, I use my pillow 8 hours a day, but my car for half an hour. Attention is a ridiculously useless metric. Eripsa posted:But perhaps that isn't enough to account for the use of the pill. The weighting system you refer to is one way of weighting things. I think a more basic weight, one in line with the general system, is to weight more heavily those goods that contribute to solving the basic coordination problem. Insofar as distribution of medicine is part of that problem, then the pill gets weights more heavily than other things. Meaningless gibberish. Anything has to be distributed; you're just back to weighing the relative importance of things. Eripsa posted:I know all this talk of popularity has you nerds worried, but my system is bottom-heavy. The people who do the most work on the things that most people use (as a matter of fact, whether they know it or know) will end up on top of my system, and the people who don't do anything of value and no one cares about will end up on bottom. That seems to be, roughly, how any good economic system should work. Our current system doesn't work like this at all, but my system would. No, it wouldn't, as anyone except you can tell from from reading this thread.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:38 |
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2013 11:11 |
|
|
ryde posted:So resource allocation is done by informal networking between people? I don't see how that's different than other economic systems, other than you're trying to benchmark the value based on attention rather than money. The problem is that it presumes that everyone thinks that its a good benchmark. And presuming you don't have some sort of new system for planning resource utilization, I don't see how you're really solving the coordination problem. An informal network of humans can easily mis-allocate resources (they do it all the time in capitalism, after all), and sub-optimal allocation means that someone's needs may not be met. My system does not depend on whether "everyone thinks that attention is a good benchmark to value". My system depends on whether "attention is a good measure of use". I will fully accept, if giving a convincing argument, that there are better ways to measure use. But I take the following to be true: 1) An economy should ensure a solution to the basic coordination problem 2) Solving the coordination problem requires tracking, monitoring, and adjusting levels of use 3) Money does not track use. 4) Therefore, money will never be a satisfactory economic medium My system is meant to be better than money in the very specific sense that it allows for the the tracking, etc of use. Tracking use does not guarantee a solution to the coordination problem, but it is a necessary step towards a solution. Money doesn't attempt to track use at all, and this leads to inefficient use of resources, and so the coordination and the sustainability problem both result in its failure. I don't guarantee a solution either, but I do guarantee access to the basic informational resources to solve it, and then I trust the people to actually care enough to solve it. If they don't, then we fail, but at least one of the necessary steps to a solution was accomplished. I personally trust humanity because we've lived through Ice Ages, we can live through the end of capitalism. But I understand yall are cynical. Look, let's step back. We have taken it for granted that money works as a ready made incentive. In fact, we've seemed to assume that money is really the only incentive that can get people to do anything, and people in this thread actually believe that without money it will be impossible to get people to do things. But hold on a second. Why is money motivating? Well, for some of us it allows us luxury goods. But I don't know if ryde is willing to clean out sewer tanks for his iPod, so I'm not sure luxury goods is itself the reason for money. Money is important because without money I will starve, and money (usually) ensures I have access to things that will prevent me from starving. Aha! So the real motivation is a desire not to starve, and the money provides a means to that end. So money isn't a motivator at all. What motivates is the desire not to starve. But wait a second. People are faced with the prospect of starving in my world too! Just a second, let me check. Yep, people can still starve in an attention economy, because it turns out that starvation is not a problem unique to a money economy. So if starvation is a motivation in this world, then starvation is ALSO a motivation in mine. I am still basically baffled why everyone in this thread literally thinks that people will stop doing work and being productive without money, and that the only way for people to be productive is to force them to be productive. I mean, I understand why a slave owner thinks the only reason slaves will work in the fields is if you whip them, because that's all they've ever known, and any time someone refuses to work, if you whip them they will work, so I can completely see why the slave owner would come to the conclusion that only with whipping will a person pick cotton. But that analogy would only work with you bright folks if you had only ever lived in situations where people do things for money and never thought that it could be different. Oh, oh, I get it.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:39 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:I'm really not sure your point. Attention are the things I am actively engaged in. It is a measure of use. Use is going to measure the things I value, especially in an economy focused on sustainability of resource production. This is because you are insane.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:43 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:But hold on a second. Why is money motivating? Well, for some of us it allows us luxury goods. But I don't know if ryde is willing to clean out sewer tanks for his iPod, so I'm not sure luxury goods is itself the reason for money. Money is important because without money I will starve, and money (usually) ensures I have access to things that will prevent me from starving. You're completely ignoring everyone who's been saying "This can be easily solved with a social safety net." quote:But wait a second. People are faced with the prospect of starving in my world too! Just a second, let me check. Yep, people can still starve in an attention economy, because it turns out that starvation is not a problem unique to a money economy. So if starvation is a motivation in this world, then starvation is ALSO a motivation in mine. In libertopia, working directly goes with not-starving. In Twittertopia, the effects of not working are far-removed. Humans are myopic (even when they read propaganda that might even be true). In a sane world, doing a crummy job directly translates to cool stuff. In Twitteropia, it translates to throwing your back out so that people don't make fun of you (and society doesn't break down, but that's so far removed that it won't really work as a reason for many people). quote:I am still basically baffled why everyone in this thread literally thinks that people will stop doing work and being productive without money, and that the only way for people to be productive is to force them to be productive. Literally no one has said that (besides you). Non-monetary incentives exist. You provide literally no incentive at all (unless Twitter making fun of you counts (it doesn't) and the threat of complete societal collapse in a far-off and distant future (it's even more far-off if you're having to work in a mine)).
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:48 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:But I take the following to be true: This hadn't jumped out at me but here's where you start going off the rails. Ensuring a basic supply of food and shelter and the like is the function of the government, not the economy. All the other three parts of your premise are wrong as well, but less glaringly than this.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:52 |
|
|
paumbert posted:This is because you are insane. These accusations of insanity are starting to get silly. Da Vinci produced designs in the 1500s for a helicopter. This is long before anyone had developed a scientific theory that made the possibility of human flight possible; as far as anyone could tell, it was completely impossible and would never work. There were stories that everyone know about the dangers of flying, and how stupid it was. That Da Vinci would come up with the idea is hopelessly optimistic, radically impractical, and an easy subject for ridicule. The idea would not be realized in his lifetime, or for hundreds of years after. But that doesn't make Da Vinci "insane" for having the idea, even if he got a lot of the details wrong, and even if his scientific understanding was woefully inadequate to actually realize the idea, and even though it went against the plainly obvious common sense that everyone had agreed to for thousands of years. It is not insane to have a radical idea about a world quite different from the world we have now. Nor is it insane to try to work out the ideas. I'm confident enough in the basic outline of the view that I'm willing to put it in front of one of the most hostile and unsympathetic group of middle class spoiled internet children there are to see how it holds up under fire, and though I'm not winning floods of converts I think I'm at least holding up to questioning, and I'm clearly doing the work to maintain the debate and address criticisms. This is not insanity. This is science fiction for sure, and bad writing, and half-baked ideas that haven't been clearly articulated. And these ideas are contrary to common sense and to the standard order of things and to the conventional wisdom of civilization for thousands of years. These ideas require a system of values that no one really has and some people think are vile. But that doesn't make them insane. That makes it a new idea that I'm trying to work on by talking about it in public. Insanity would be incoherence, or sustained delusion, or emotional instability. Insanity would be a failure to remain on topic. I know some of the ideas seem like that, because they are big and multi-faceted and you need to use some imagination to see the different parts of the system, and after all it is fiction so it will have the appearance of delusion. And I know it is a huge amount of fun to jump on bandwagons without really paying attention to the thread and laugh at me because ho ho look at that craaazy idea. But accusations of insanity are really just ad hom attacks and serve to derail and distract from the discussion. If this forum were adequately moderated these things would get checked; unfortunately the moderator also has a bone to pick with me, for some reason, and not only encourages but joins in on the reindeer games. The distractions don't bother me, and I'm fine ignoring the stupid comments in this thread. But a repeated lie starts sounding like the truth, and there's nothing I've done to warrant an accusation of insanity, so I'd appreciate it if we can cut that poo poo out. Mental illness is a real problem that real people have, and it isn't appropriate in this thread.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:58 |
|
|
You are not Leonardo Da Vinci.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 19:59 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:These accusations of insanity are starting to get silly. Far more crazy people have expressed crazy unadulterated nonsense since then, we might charitably estimate the number of those people at 500 million. The odds are lookin' good for you being Eripsa Da Vinci!
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 20:00 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:sustained delusion I think this is where the criticism comes from. The fact that you've clung so tenaciously to your system looks nutty to people who aren't in academia, I think. Like, I think it's unfortunate that you're blind to the system's flaws and all, and kind of messed up that you're more or less incapable of seeing its obvious problems, but 'insane' doesn't really seem to fit. Contrast with Uglycat, who is somewhere between perpetually stoned and tragically ill (perhaps both). quote:I think I'm at least holding up to questioning ...not really. Don't do the da Vinci thing, though. Comparing oneself to great thinkers is like #3 on the List of Ways to Look Like a Loon (there used to be a checklist for this but I can't find it now)
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 20:06 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:edit: adjusting weights would be, of course, the tools for adjusting the economy. Adjusting those weights would also be decided in open and democratic ways. If it needs to be said, the tools for adjusting our economy are not democratically decided. If you could answer the bit in my last post I might understand more. You seem to be edging towards a crowd-sourced value system that's going to overwhelm whatever signal you get from your 'attention' system. Which begs the question why bother with attention at all, and not boil down to the eventual crowrd-sourced command economy. Icecream y/n?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:30 |
|
|
OatmealRaisin posted:You are not Leonardo Da Vinci. Correct. You are Newt Gingrich.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:32 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:But accusations of insanity are really just ad hom attacks and serve to derail and distract from the discussion. If this forum were adequately moderated these things would get checked; unfortunately the moderator also has a bone to pick with me, for some reason, and not only encourages but joins in on the reindeer games. I don't have a bone to pick with you I find this to be the most entertaining thread on SA right now. I also don't think you personally are insane - you're no uglycat - but this idea is completely insane. When do we see Chapter 3?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:37 |
|
|
I think we need another parable. quote:"Holy poo poo!" you shout from the passenger seat just a few inches to my right. "How fast are you going? Slow the gently caress down!"
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:38 |
|
|
I have another parable: "it turns out cars can't fly dude"
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:39 |
|
|
If you had the first ever automobile ever conceived or created then your passengers' worry would be warranted. Also, assuming your car had no breaks. I mean, you're basically assuming that your system will work swimmingly and then asking us to tell you why it wouldn't, which is exactly backwards. If we had a lot of experience with crowd-sourcing leading to extremely accurate and high quality results, people giving attention to really important things instead of distractions or toys, and high levels of altruism and responsibility leading to massive organized action for the betterment of society, then maybe we wouldn't be so skeptical of your system. Coincidentally, if we had all those things, we could probably make the current system work reasonably well too. I'm not saying that everything has to be perfect, but it has to be good enough. If its not good enough now, then its not going to be good enough in your system. If they were good enough, then we wouldn't be having the kind of problems we're having now.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:46 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:I think we need another parable. No, this is more like the driving scene from Fight Club.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:48 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:I think we need another parable.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:49 |
|
|
ryde posted:If you had the first ever automobile ever conceived or created then your passengers' worry might actually be warranted. Also, assuming your car had no breaks. Worry is certainly warranted. Absolute smug confidence that a highway system would never work, is against fundamental human nature, fails to account for human stupidity, and is generally a loony idea would NOT be warranted.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:50 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Worry is certainly warranted. "Who are you to tell me the car won't fly and we shouldn't try it? Not even once, just to see what happens?"
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:51 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Worry is certainly warranted. Worry is expressed in the form of concerns. When those concerns are not adequately met, it tends to breed confidence that the concerns are warranted.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:51 |
|
|
Also bad drivers get their licenses revoked and are removed from the pool of drivers, by force, if they persist in driving.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:52 |
|
|
Cefte posted:A parable that tries to use control of a machine in the immediate vicinity of the controller, with immediate reactions to his commands, with immediate, visible and easily predicted consequences for his personal self, is possibly the worst metaphor for the system of distributed global economic guidance you're proposing that I cold possibly imagine. Actually it is quite an appropriate metaphor. Because although the system itself is distributed (in all the cars and roads and signs and DMVs and whatever), and my control of it is entirely localized (to what I can do with the wheel and the pedals), it is a clear case that when given proper training and a neutral platform that does not force specific behaviors but encourages them through nudges and informative suggestions (like road signs and traffic lanes), it is possible to build a system that will allow the people to coordinate their behavior productively. There is no centralized command, all the nodes act autonomously in a structured environment, and the fuckers don't even get paid for it, but the whole thing flows.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:54 |
|
|
Cefte posted:Also bad drivers get their licenses revoked and are removed from the pool of drivers, by force, if they persist in driving. Yes. I haven't talked about punishment yet, but I think the only punishment for demonstrably uncooperative behavior is exile.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:55 |
|
|
That's a good point. Later guys, I'm going to go mine coal for free!
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:55 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Actually it is quite an appropriate metaphor. Because although the system itself is distributed (in all the cars and roads and signs and DMVs and whatever), and my control of it is entirely localized (to what I can do with the wheel and the pedals), it is a clear case that when given proper training and a neutral platform that does not force specific behaviors but encourages them through nudges and informative suggestions (like road signs and traffic lanes) will allow the people to coordinate their behavior autonomously. There is no centralized command, all the nodes act autonomously in a structured environment, and the fuckers don't even get paid for it, but the whole thing flows. http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html Also: 
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:56 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Yes. I haven't talked about punishment yet, but I think the only punishment for demonstrably uncooperative behavior is exile. Awesome. Real-life Escape from LA.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:58 |
|
|
"It turns out a system where a central authority lays down laws on how to act within it and punishes deviations from those laws, and failure to adhere to them can literally kill you, works. This supports my argument, for the following reasons:"
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:58 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Actually it is quite an appropriate metaphor. Because although the system itself is distributed (in all the cars and roads and signs and DMVs and whatever), and my control of it is entirely localized (to what I can do with the wheel and the pedals), it is a clear case that when given proper training and a neutral platform that does not force specific behaviors but encourages them through nudges and informative suggestions (like road signs and traffic lanes) will allow the people to coordinate their behavior autonomously. There is no centralized command, all the nodes act autonomously in a structured environment, and the fuckers don't even get paid for it, but the whole thing flows. Edit: those nudges you describe, like 'don't drive down a one way street' or 'speed limit: 50', are the bits that are grist for bad comedians because they're broken so often, contingent on their being no immediate observer or enforcer to stop people from breaking them. The bit where you don't drive headfirst into another car people manage by themselves, because they've got easily understood skin in the game. It's unfortunate that you use the latter in your parable to defend the functionality of the former, because it's fundamentally misleading and a waste of people's time to deconstruct (no matter how easy it is to do).
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:58 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Yes. I haven't talked about punishment yet, but I think the only punishment for demonstrably uncooperative behavior is exile. So basically, the people who don't like your system can just "Go Galt" and the only repercussions are going to be that you're standing at the brand new borders telling them that they're exiled. I don't think they'll care. Well, unless you build a military and reclaim the territory that they'll inevitably seize, but it doesn't seem to align with your particular views on coercion.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 21:59 |
|
|
Seriously, Eripsa, if you're so above the spoiled middle-class children making fun of your idea, then go mine some coal or iron for free for a few years. Or are you more of an "idea man."
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 22:02 |
|
|
paumbert posted:Seriously, Eripsa, if you're so above the spoiled middle-class children making fun of your idea, then go mine some coal or iron for free for a few years. Or are you more of an "idea man." I don't think this sort of attack is warranted. However, it brings up a good point. If one assumes that humans are willing and motivated to work for the betterment of society, why more aren't doing so right now? There's plenty of charity work going on, so we're not saying that humans are not altruistic, but there's not enough to currently support the poor, much less everyone. If, as you say, humans are guided by altruism and self-motivation, then we could solve the problem of poverty right now.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 22:21 |
|
|
ryde posted:I don't think this sort of thing is warranted, but it is a good point that, if one assumes that humans are willing and motivated to work for the betterment of society, why more aren't doing so right now? There's plenty of charity work going on, so we're not saying that humans are not altruistic, but there's not enough to currently support the poor, much less everyone. If, as you say, humans are guided by altruism and self-motivation, then we could solve the problem of poverty right now. It's perfectly warranted because I know for a fact Eripsa is not going to volunteer to lift one finger to do the dirty work of maintaining his lifestyle much less the one imagined in his technotopia. In fact, I doubt there is any compensation that would spur him to go into a coal mine for a single day.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 22:24 |
|
|
I found this http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Who wants to make a score card?
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 23:18 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html Let's talk about anarchy, evilweasel. Because those laws there, they certainly exist. And they allow the state to take coercive measures against individuals for infractions to the social order. I break the law, I go to jail. The state has a monopoly on coercive force, after all, so they get to write the laws and they get to enforce them. I have my brief say over this process, in the voting booth, but I'm led to trust that the general democratic system in this great country of ours is set up so that, on average and in general, hopefully, the justice inherent in the system will ensure that the laws are ultimately for the best. The democracy is supposed to provide that claim with legitimacy, and the results should ultimately be a testament to its success. This system, evilweasel, and the laws that you cite that it has produced, have failed. On every count, in every way. A horrible, tragic, human-wide failure that has been rolling for a few hundred years now. Granted, completely granted, that this system is WILDLY preferable to the previous system, where I don't even get my 5 minutes in the voting booth. No question whatsoever, I'd take this one over the other. I would have fought and died in any of the many, many wars that secured us those 5 minutes in the voting booth, and uncountably many people have died for them. But, and this might sound greedy, but I think I we can do a bit better than that. In fact, I know we can, and I'm pretty sure most of us know we can. So every minute we don't, well, that's a drat human shame. I recognize fully well that most of us don't think we can do better. You and many others in this thread have pointed repeatedly to the system of controls and incentives and powers that are in place, as if their existence itself were justification enough, as if the mere presence of a hyperlink to a body of law itself were a sufficient demonstration of the necessity of that law, or of its success and legitimacy. But that law, that precedent, and those systems of control have categorically failed. It has failed to secure its legitimacy because it does not speak for the people; it speaks only for the money that builds those systems of control. It has failed to demonstrate success, except for those precious few who can corrupt the system to their advantage. And it has failed to enact justice due to that corruption. The Existing Order of Things is a human crime and tragedy of proportions that are comparable in quality to the practice of slavery, except this poo poo is worldwide and implicates several billion more people, including every one reading these words. Every day we rest on our existing body of corrupt and illegitimate law is another day we perpetuate that crime. But everyone, it seems, is ready for change. And if I actually thought that people needed to be forced, like rats in a lab, through a series of rewards and punishments, then maybe I'd think money was a drat good thing, and we just need to get our budgets under control. And if I thought that people needed centralized organization, well then I'd be thinking about what laws to change or what policies to enact that will help us enact justice, and maybe help with that budget problem. And if I thought that my consumption habits really aren't that big a problem so I don't actually need to change my lifestyle to fix the mess, well then I'd probably advocate for social safety nets too, so like the poor people have soup and blankets or whatever and I can go back to ignoring the problem and perpetuating the crime. But see, this thing came around a few decades ago called Internet, and it has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are endlessly creative and productive and busy and curious and diligent and studious and generous, and they were willing to put tremendous amounts of labor into the projects they find interesting, regardless of what thinks they should do. And usually all they want in return is the space to show it their project off, and to get genuine credit and recognition for their work, and for it to be appreciated by their communities. The internet also shows that people are petty and incorrigible and dumb and generally filthy and tend towards groupthink and memesis, but none of that was counterproductive, and instead it just added to the diversity of a blooming, flourishing little hive of activity. None of them were getting paid to do any of it. It is natural human social activity, and it grows like loving weeds if you let it. It is quite healthy-- doesn't make it pretty, and doesn't make it particularly smart, but this sucker's alive. Living organisms have their own logic of incentive and drive. Scratching at the ground all day and sniffing twigs, you couldn't pay me to do that. But the squirrel just loving loves it, and will do it all the live long day. You don't need to provide a living thing with motivation, it has that motivation because it is alive. That's basically what it means to be alive: that it moves of its own accord. If I were Aristotle I'd say that the internet has a soul. And in particular, we are moving of OUR own accord. This thing isn't centralized, and no one is in charge. The Internet is self-organized and sustainable (two concepts that Aristotle never quite managed). Here's a big open secret, evilweasel, and its a point about Anarchy more than De Anima, but still: the highway system is self-organized too. I know, I know, you have a hyperlink with a set of laws. But those laws only allow the state to take its corrective, coercive measures of discipline and punishment. Those are ways for the State to exert its power over the highway system. But that's not what makes the traffic flow, and those laws do nothing to describe its behavior or coerce my action as I sit behind the wheel. Those laws do not describe and do not help us understand the highway system. Here's one of my absolute favorite cyborg videos. This is traffic in a different system. If you've never driven in India this might look like utter chaos to you, but the traffic flows there too, and everyone seems to cooperate well enough. The big difference between this pattern of traffic flow and traffic at a typical intersection in the US is not the body of laws that describe the state's control over the system. I know you really want to think that's true, but its not. The big difference also isn't the level of enforcement of those bodies of laws. These systems might each themselves flow slightly differently in the presence of a police officer, but will still be just as radically different from each other. The big difference, the important difference between these two systems, is that in the US, there is a bunch of paint on the ground to indicate lanes, and lights in the sky to tell one person to go or stop, and there are signs loving everywhere, and in general the environment is highly engineered to make it really easy for the people navigating those lanes to all coordinate their behavior. Furthermore, we've all had to go through mandatory training to learn how to read and interpret all those signs so we all behave basically the same way. The people in India don't have the same restrictions, and their environments don't help them out nearly as much, so they have to get by with other systems of coordination, and it requires being a lot more aware of what the other cars are doing, and that probably requires a whole different set of skills that don't transfer well from the US. But those things, the things that are actually coordinating the behavior of the individuals in that system, just is the agents in that environment. This is a self-moved system, a self-organized system. All systems are like this. The world, the natural world, has no rulers and no authorities and no gods. The roads and highways that you trust your life to on a daily basis are already living anarchist collectives. There isn't anything outside of that directing the motions of the agents. No one controls it, all the agents in the system are completely autonomous. If I wanted to, I could drive in any lane I wanted, or right across all of them. But I don't, because I generally want to be cooperative and the system makes it really easy for me to cooperate. So let me say this again one more time because this is like a core principle: all you need for a thriving, productive system are cooperators and an environment that encourages cooperation. If you have just that, the traffic will flow. The two are related. If you have a highly structured environment, then the people don't really need to care that much about cooperation at all, hence the reason that idiots like evilweasel think that the laws actually cause the traffic to flow. But if you have a very unstructured environment, then you need people to really care a lot about cooperation, or it won't work. To drive in India, you better be bright awake and alert and paying some loving attention. The dependence of behavior on self-structured environments has a name, and it is called "stigmergy". It is the same thing responsible for the ant mill I posted earlier. These are self-organized systems. You are totally dying to hit "reply" and point out that all the signs and the paint and the driver's ed comes because of the laws too. But Internet is, again, an existence proof that we can develop standards and training in open and collaborative and decentralized ways. And of course the law enforcement does matter, and I need to talk about police and I'm going to hold that off until the story, but I think there are still clear ways to enforce good standards and practices in distributed ways too, no matter how much you all want to mock the Twitter Council. In other words, these points don't undermine the central theme here of self-organization. The actual act of driving on the road, the coordination and structuring of it all, is actually done by the people in their cars, responding actively to each other and to the structured environment. They are each autonomous cybernetic unities, packed full of whatever drugs and crazed beliefs and malicious intentions they have, and with who knows what distractions and stresses and pressures and calories, but they all want to cooperate well enough that the system still works, and we are the ones making that happen. Of course we are the ones that are making it happen. When the hell did we ever let them make us think otherwise? Oh, that's right, the final excuse: bread and circuses. This system works well enough, no need to rock the boat. Safety nets for the poor, iPods for the rest! So I'm sorry, but wake the gently caress up. This system doesn't work "well enough", you have just been fooled into thinking it works well enough for you. I am not saying this in the "OMG FASCIST PIGS" teenage rage voice. I'm saying this in the "it was 65 degrees outside in January in Illinois and I'm not sure what that is going to mean for the crops next year" very sensible voice. Because we have loving real big problems, guys, and the election in November isn't going to turn this ship around. I know you think yourself to be all grown up and liberal-minded when you say "I'll certainly pay more taxes to make sure there are no children in poverty!", as if that even begins to approach a real solution to any of the problems we face, as if that isn't just another spin on the wheel of excuses. I know the system is really loving comfortable for you now, but it is about to get a hell of a lot more uncomfortable for everyone really soon, so I'm sorry but you need to get off your lawn chair and help out. There are 6.5 billion humans out there who aren't Americans, and they seem peckish. I think the digital values are good, and I think a social situation organized around those values looks much different than ours does now, and I think that's a really loving good thing because the Existing Order of Things is dead and we have been loving its corpse for the last 20 years and now it is just embarrassing. I know you think it feels even better now than before she died but come on man, you have to move on.
|
| # ? Feb 3, 2012 23:56 |
|
|
The Observer posted:I found this quote:A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2012 00:01 |
|
|
Baez is an old math prof of mine when I was studying computer science. Now I follow him on Google+  edit: Here's my score, replacing math/science/physics with "economics": quote:A -5 point starting credit. Total: 515 Not bad, but a lot of the more amusing questions didn't make the cut.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2012 00:05 |
|
|
Eripsa, that giant wall of text is basically chock full of flowery speech and assertions that you assume are obviously true but are not. I'm tempted to dissect it, but we've been down your road and it just results in you making more baseless assertions and then claiming that you've proven your point. If you were to actually diligently, honestly, and accurately assess your claims, then maybe we could have a conversation, but you consistently refuse to dive into specifics. When people do bring up specifics counter to your assertions, you hand-wave them away, claim that obviously people are not perfect but its not evidence against your system, despite you not having properly argued that point. At this point, I'm going to once again call it a lost cause. Good job on calling me on the uncomputability thing, but that's really the only point for you that I can see in this thread. Can we get back to discussing the viability of the Morlock-based economy? I really feel like it had potential?
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2012 00:16 |
|
|
Reading this thread is really quite hilarious, as so many completely miss the point. Discouraging discussion of what a radically new economic model might look like only works to preserve the status quo. And while the aim must be for such a plan to be viable, coherent and sound (if there is any hope of some day implementing it), demanding that in the first draft is absolutely absurd. For someone attempting such an endeavor, pointing out a real challenge or contradiction actually contributes to the effort - but mindlessly nay-saying does the opposite. For those putting such incredible effort into slaying this Winged Demon known as Eripsa, I have to ask - have you spent any time yourself, brainstorming how to solve the objections you raise? In any case, money has always been a means of quantifying attention. In a 'healthy' economy, money actually approximates attention. When money ceases to serve as such an approximation, the economy (and the lives of the 99%) suffer dramatically. Look at Tsunamis. Before this century, there were no photographs - let alone video -of a Tsunami. The best we had to go by was a written account (written before the common era) from Northern Africa and an ink-on-silk painting from Japan. Then we (those of us that were online back then) watched the horror from Indonesia in '04. We were watching the Atlantic, after the quake in Haiti. And there were an awful lot of us watching Hawaii, after the quake in Chile. And then Japan got hosed-and-a-half. In our present economy - the one built on 'currency', the one that has failed utterly in recent memory - money does not always correspond to attention. It does in politics - which is why 'money = speech' (and why corporations are allowed to donate to campaigns, and why campaigns are allowed super-pacs). But that game is rigged. Corporations and individuals with deep pockets could effectively force legislation through - because nobody was paying attention. That game has changed. The Internet is now paying very close attention to every bill that comes before every legislative body. Look at Indiana's 'right to work' bill, or bills that affect women's reproductive rights, or SOPA, etc. Attention is now being paid, and that attention stands the chance of actually rendering the money useless. SOPA didn't fail from a lack of monetary support. Goons had threads about the horror that might result from a Cat-5 hurricane hitting New Orleans a full year before it happened (it helped that our servers were in Nawlins). Had a thread about the impending financial collapse a year before it happened. There've been crazies running around here insisting that Anonymous will soon be a serious force as a non-state actor for years. We've worked out a pretty good system of attention right here. And there are newer communities - relying more heavily on crowd-sourcing techniques - that do a much better job than we do. Winning an election entails drawing more (positive) attention (or less negative, depending). In our Status Quo system, money is taken to correlate with attention. The person with the best fund-raising is expected to get more voters. That system has become broken, and nobody recognizes it. On the right, you have people insisting that nothing has changed - and nor should it, as money=speech. On the left, you have people insisting that nothing has changed - and that we need to pass sweeping legislation to ensure that money!=speech (by killing citizen's united, outlawing superpacs, establishing limits on donations to candidates, requiring 'equal time' on public airwaves, or publicly funding all elections). There's a minority of people out there that realize you could, in theory, win a presidential election on a shoe-string budget, if you properly utilize new media. Imagine if, the day before the elections, Obama decided to do a 'Let's Play', playing through both Portal games (inviting anyone who wishes to watch, while offering reminders to his audience to vote for him come election day). I think this would all but guarantee his re-election. If the thought causes you an emotional knee-jerk reaction, that says a lot more about your thought processes than mine. I may be wrong; but I'm illustrating a very real change in society, and for that change to genuinely /upset/ you says volumes. It's the loving fireplace delusion. Eripsa has done a fine job of pointing out that money utterly fails at approximating an objective measure of attention. And it does. But before the internet existed, it was the best we had - and it did a reasonably good job (so long as the populace didn't become too apathetic). Now, we have the internet. There are already two corporate GIANTS that are actively measuring attention (and making a huge profit from their efforts) - Facebook and Google. And people are upset as gently caress about that. But the internet already tracks attention. That's what 'trending' means. That's what 'reaching the first page' means. That's how targeted advertising works. That's what it means when something 'goes viral' - that it's drawing a great deal of attention. And, again, SA deserves some credit for this. We made AYB - the first viral meme to 'break through' into mainstream media - go viral. We've been behind thousands of popular memes. We spawned 4chan. Chanology was a success (and had a profound influence on the present incarnation of political activism) in part because goons created enturbulation.org. We live in an attention based economy. And there are forces at work trying to kill this, trying to restore money as king. This is where things like SOPA and mandated persistent identity and an 'internet kill-switch' come in. Hell, what is the Low Orbit Ion Cannon, if not an opportunity for basement dwelling high schoolers to demonstrate that they are paying attention? We have the ability to measure this. We're already doing it. The economy that is emerging is based upon it. And there are counter-forces working to kill it. And those counter-forces are (generally) recognized on these forums as 'bad.' And these forums recognize the capitalist system that got us where we are as fundamentally flawed. And somehow, when Eripsa comes in here and starts brainstorming on the topic, he gets dumped on by a shitload of sycophantic sophists - actively (albeit obliviously) undermining the advancement of humanity. I'm not saying you should interpret him uncritically; but yes, make an effort at a charitable interpretation before you just poo poo all over him. Make an effort to understand what it is he's advocating, before you throw in your two cents. And make an effort to contribute to the overall project - brainstorming a better future - that attempts to off-set whatever stumbling blocks you uncover. I couldn't predict what the outcome of such a productive thread would be (if I could, we wouldn't need to crowd-source it). I don't think Eripsa is approaching this from an ideological perspective either. Everyone needs to approach this thread from a pragmatic point of view. And it's fair to expect such a discussion to be very high-level, difficult to understand, involved, all-encompassing, and to start out very rough. If you expect Eripsa to be capable of posting a 'tl;dr' in the OP that somehow accounts for all your objections and instantly convinces everyone - you fail to grasp the task that Eripsa is undertaking. And he's not the first to attempt such a project. The Founding Fathers had such discussions. The bankers probably had a similar discussion when they were dreaming up ways to repackage junk mortgages as AAA rated investments. Small groups of sci-fi writers have argued such alternative economies in pubs. There seems to be an underlying theme in this thread not merely that Eripsa is wrong, but that nobody has a right to even imagine dreaming so big. gently caress those people. If you're a lurker, I urge you to speak up and poo poo all over anybody you see pushing such stupidity. Now - more than ever - is the time to dream big.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2012 00:19 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:But I take the following to be true: This is what I disagree with. Point 1, a government should provide that solution, using tools such as the economy and laws. Point 2, see point 1. Point 3, it is in companies best interest to supply the correct amount to the right places to maximize profit. This is in the current system. Frequent failures in this, see starvation, is often down to governments, international borders and corruption. Point 4, money is a satisfactory economic medium. The government is often far from satisfactory, especially it's handling of the economy, but that is the fault of the government and not a fundamental flaw of bartering goods and services for money.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2012 00:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 20, 2013 11:11 |
|
|
Uglycat, I actually do ruminate on alternate economics. I don't write out documents and whatnot and post them on Something Awful, but I'm certainly willing to discuss them. People in this very thread have brought up alternative systems. The problem I have with Eripsa is that he is not willing to challenge is base assumptions, and prefers to rather turn around and re-assert them with a bunch of flowery but ultimately meaningless rhetoric. These are base assumptions which, if they held true, would basically cause nearly any economic system to work. The fact that there are problems with our current system heavily implies that they are not as universally true as Eripsa would like to believe. e: Dammit, it happened again. I'm putting way too much effort into this thread.
|
| # ? Feb 4, 2012 00:26 |
|
