[extropy-chat] Help! I'm not ready for reality! (was the 7 cents thread)

[Jack Parkinson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>

> On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Jack Parkinson wrote:
>>(snop)
>> 1) That arriving at the pinnacle of success (for a person) - or  market 
>> power (for an organisation) does not make either the person,  or the 
>> organisation, admirable. "Winners" are not to be adored as  Darwinian 
>> success stories (especially if their 'wins' are only able  to be 
>> appreciated in economic terms). Conservative capitalism's  love of the 
>> big players is (I think) a form of false idolatry.
>
> It takes many quite admirable qualities to "arrive at the pinnacle of 
> success".  Darwin has very little to do with it and in context you 
> display prejudice to interject Darwin here.   Bigness per se also has 
> little to do with success.

You comment is beside the point. I didn't raise Darwin - and I certainly 
don't believe this nonsense! John C did raise it in a prior post, and I 
thought it was ridiculous. Since I am arguing that small is good, I am 
hardly likely to make the claim you attribute to me above - which I 
understand as big equates with success..
>
>> Extrapolated to the extropian point of view - this means in my  opinion 
>> that there is still plenty of scope for everything to go  terribly wrong. 
>> If big business can be immoral, self-serving and  parasitic - and 
>> presidents can be dumb and parochial - who knows  what might happen?

> Business cannot be truly amoral without going out of business unless 
> propped up by government, i.e., by physical force.   I do not agree  that 
> business, big or otherwise, is generally parasitic.  Business is  by 
> definition  "self-serving" but if done rationally that is not only  not a 
> breach of morality in my thinking, it is essential to morality.

The pressure on business is always towards amorality. This is because it is 
cheaper to pay people less, cut safety margins, fail to deal with your 
effluents, take short cuts, dilute the mix, etc. Any controlling 
ethical/moral/legal system constitutes an overhead that inflates costs. I 
did not say however that all business is parasitic - and I do not believe 
that.

>
>> The question: Who will control the technology - and how will they  do it? 
>> May well be the ultimate deciding factor between a bright  enhanced 
>> future and interminable conflict or worse. I for one would  not like a 
>> mega-corporation to exercise this kind of control.
>>
>
> I doubt very much that any centralized group will or can "control the 
> technology".  I don't consider the question particularly relevant.

I do doubt. And I think the question is very relevant. How will you feel if 
life extension and perpetual youth/good health becomes possible, but the 
requisite /medical application/gene sequences/techniques have been patented 
by a corporation - who refuse to let you join the elite they have decided 
will use them?

>
>> 2) There is too much facile acceptance of silly buzz-word ideas  like: 
>> "Efficiency is keeping prices low,"
>
> Do you deny that the price is directly correlated with efficiency of 
> production and distribution?

Silly question. Buzz phrases by definition have some truth - the whole point 
I am making is that that it is not ALL the truth.
>
>> "Darwin asserts that the survivor is the best equipped to carry the 
>> torch,"
>
> Darwin asserted no such thing when applied to general business.

I KNOW! I gave this as an example of stupidity! Some such nonsense came from 
John C!

>
>> What's good for the economy is good for the country,"
>
> This is true but most people are very confused about what is actually 
> good ofr the economy or as to what they mean by "economy".

You completely failed to understand that I gave all these expressions as 
examples of facile reasoning.

>
>> "All competition is healthy" etc.

As above...
>
> All competition under rules that outlaw the initiation of force is 
> generally healthy in economic and many other activities.

Yes! But ...very large business can squash effective competition and use 
force...

>
>> There is no credit to be had for taking a 10 second sound-bite to  be all 
>> inclusive wisdom.
>
> There is no credit in denigrating others with a straw man argument.

Samantha, you have not properly read and understood this thread...
>
>> Catch-phrases are for air-heads and couch potatoes - serious people 
>> should be prepared to look at the in-depth argument or admit that  Homer 
>> Simpson does it way better than they do.
>
> OK.  I agree with Rafal and others here.  What you are doing is not 
> reasoned argument.  Later.
> - samantha

You may have thought it more reasonable had your comprehension of what I 
said not been skewed about 180 degrees...
Jack Parkinson