[extropy-chat] Appeasement

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> The conventional view is that if Z doesn't react, X will keep testing
> the limits.  I.e., there's a high cost for Z's inaction.  Along with
> this view goes the policy prescription of acting sooner rather than
> latter against a given X.  (Naturally, in a world full of real and
> potential Xs, this would mean constant involvement everywhere for any
> Z.)  Is there empirical evidence to back this claim?  I could be more
> rhetorically charged here:  Does anyone have good reason to accept
> the
> view that inaction always leads to these undesirable outcomes or is
> this
> just something that's assumed because it's the conventional wisdom?

It's based on a simplistic analysis of what many people believe they
themselves would do, were they the simplistic (and immature and
short-sighted) characterization of X that they see.  Given the
relatively small percent of people who tend to place their long-term
self-interest above their short-term desires, this characterization and
analysis is not always incorrect.