[extropy-chat] Sustainability philosophy as a justification for existence

[Jef Allbright]

Robert Bradbury wrote:

> I was genuinely trying to to engage in the discussion of 
> resource allocation for the purpose of optimization (of lives 
> saved, greatest complexity achieved soonest, greatest 
> fraction of the phase space of molecular designs explored 
> (and mostly discarded), greatest amount of art, music or 
> literature created, etc.) -- almost *anything* but more of 
> the boring sameness on the TV, in the political arena, in 
> peoples lives (live, make babies, die), etc. 

Many on this list share values such as these.  But "greatest complexity
achieved soonest" rings of "greatest good for the greatest number" and
suffers similarly from the assumption that there can be a truly
objective "good".  Better to organize around principles of action that
work over increasing scope, with increasing complexity (of a kind [1])
as a side effect rather than a goal.

> A seminar I took many years ago pointed out that there are 
> only 3 things in life -- "more", "different" and "better".

A key message of such seminars is that one is personally empowered to
make change.  As mentioned previously, it is essential for effectiveness
-- and ultimately, survival -- that any agent believes it is able to
make progress toward its goals, but it's important when dealing with
others, to realize that these goals are subjective.  To the extent that
one's goals are workable and shared with others, synergetic advantage
can be obtained.

> I'm trying to see whether there is any hope for "different" 
> and particularly "better" gaining the upper hand over "more".

What works, persists and grows.  What works to promote increasingly
shared values over increasing scope is seen as increasingly good.

We understand that "difference" is essential for growth.  We understand
that simply "more" of something leads to eventual stagnation. See [2].

Whether you can have hope for things getting "better" depends on your
alignment with what works within your sphere of affectivity, not on any
supposed ultimate objective measure.

- Jef

[1] There are many disjoint definitions of complexity and little
agreement on even a central concept pointing back to our anthropic and
cultural biases with regard to "meaning".

[2] The law of requisite variety is often overlooked by those who
imagine an ultimate solution to ecological problems.