[ExI] forwarding tara maya's post: capitalism, etc

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/11/10 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> From: Tara Maya [mailto:tara at taramayastales.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:48 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal
>
> Almost none of my emails get through, so I apologize if I am cramming too
> many ideas in at once. These are my thoughts inspired by the ongoing
> discussion.

Thanks for making the effort Tara, and though I am replying late, I
really want you to know that I appreciated your post very much.

> 1. Happiness vs. Suffering
> There is no utopia possible, because of human nature. Actually, it's worse
> than that. Change human nature, and is utopia possible? No. Even if we all
> upload or evolve, we are not going to have a utopia. Happiness (and
> suffering) exist to let encourage (or warn) you to pursue actions  that will
> (hopefully) prolong your survival or your relatives' survival, and that is
> true of all living beings, not just humans. So the goal of eliminating all
> suffering is a ludicrous one. Not only it isn't possible, it isn't
> desirable. Life pays one coin, heads happiness, tails suffering. If you
> eliminate all suffering, you eliminate all happiness; you end life.

Suffering can be staved off by pushing problems to the future, or
through time limited exponential growth. It is the problem of the red
queen (Alice in Wonderland) though... you have to go faster and faster
to remain in the same place. America seems to be getting off the
exponential growth train, and I think it is going to get more painful
before it gets less... In the long term, however, I entirely believe
you are correct. Eventually you run out of asteroids to mine... and
even Jupiter's mass will be sucked dry... and then where will we go?
Unless we have FTL travel through some magickal process that I cannot
comprehend, we are doomed to run out of exponential growth at some
point, and suffering and competition will resume in earnest.

> 2. Pragmatism vs. Dogmatism
> Despite my belief that one cannot eliminate ALL suffering, I do believe
> certain systems/regimes/relationships, etc. are worse than they need to be.
> The way we can tell things can be better is that we (1) try something new
> and find it to be better, or (2) see someone else try something new and find
> it to be better. (Though we must be careful: the cash is always greener on
> the other side of the economy.)

If what you are doing doesn't work, try something different. Anything
different. The thing is, that what we're doing is working mostly... to
the extent that it is capitalism, it is working pretty good.

Now I haven't said this before, so some of you may consider this an
intellectual victory...  :-)

Some corporations and corporate officers and representatives are
collectively or individually so selfish that they act in immoral ways.
This is just plain wrong. Unfettered capitalism must not be a license
for greedy and immoral people and corporations to take advantage of
the rest of us. Abusing the environment for selfish gain at the
expense of everyone else is one of the most important classes of
immoral acts engaged in by corporations. So capitalism to be
successful MUST have moral people and moral corporations. Since you
can't legislate morality, you're screwed. Religion doesn't seem to be
able to add to the morals of our society either, and in some cases
actually erodes moral behavior. Without moral behavior, capitalism is
bad.

So, what is to be done? There are no easy answers. Perhaps though we
will somehow be able to get AGI to behave in a more moral fashion than
people. It might be possible.. and it all goes back to the whole
friendly AI thing that we've already beaten to death. Pray to Odin for
friendly AI... :-)

> The smartest thing Zero State has said so far is that they will try out and
> test their ideas before advocating them.

I don't think that's particularly practical, but whatever...

> Some deeper reading of history
> would also be instructive. One thing I like about the Occupy movement is
> that they are trying to be the change they advocate. We, as well as they,
> can all see consensus decision making become tyranny of the few over the
> many, rape and abuse of property proliferate, taxation taken without
> representation, and other problems plague the Occupy camps. This would not
> have surprised anyone who had studied the long history of similar movements,
> but if the Occupy folks have better solutions to these problems than they
> have yet demonstrated, this would be the time to dazzle the world.

Unfortunately, I don't think the occupy people have very many good
ideas, and if they do, they certainly aren't held by the majority of
the group. They are intellectually fragmented, and so are destined to
either fizzle, or end in violence. Either way, they become a political
tool for the tools in Washington on both sides. This isn't going to
help the people on the bottom any more than any other similar group
mob action... (Reference 1918 Russia)

> 3. Evolution vs. Revolution
> Revolutions are never undertaken by the bottom of society against the top.
> They are always undertaken by the next-to-the-top of society against the
> top. They usually only result in a new top. Historically, revolutions don't
> have a good track record in actually improving the lot of the common joe and
> jane. Evolution and innovation, slow and steady change that is much less
> dramatic and not nearly so romantic, has a much better record of improving
> the lives of everyone.

What do we want? Incremental improvement!!!
When do we want it? Gradually!!!!
(Apologies to Spike, but this now belongs to me too, meme successfully
reproduced!)

> Personally, I don't really understand the complaint that nothing at all is
> working in our present society, so we ought to throw ALL of it out, and
> start over from scratch. Starting over from scratch is a really bad idea.

Totally agree. Reinstituting a hunter gatherer society would be a
disaster at this point. So would resurrecting the USSR.

> You couldn't do it even if you wanted to, but if you wanted to, you'd have
> ...what? A cave, a stick and a rock? Seriously? The past ten thousand
> generations of humans have toiled to give us, their descendants, the benefit
> of their wisdom and hard work, and they have managed to pass this on to us
> in a way that most animals cannot. Most animals do indeed start from scratch
> every new generation, and far from changing their lives for the better, this
> perpetual "revolution" only leads them to replicate the exact lifestyle of
> their predecessors. It is precisely because we do NOT have to start from
> scratch, because we are not condemned to perpetual revolution, that we can
> stand on the shoulders of our parents and grandparents and see farther over
> the horizon. To kick out the support under us would only make us fall,
> perhaps to an even lower level than what we hope to replace.

The rope is already around all our necks. We must not kick chairs out
from under each other!

> 4. Capitalism vs. Anti-captialism
> I was raised a socialist, so the "anything but capitalism" mindset is like
> mother's milk to me. But I have weaned.

Congratulations!!! This is at least as great a victory as my
overcoming my religious upbringing!!!

> I learned to love capitalism the
> hard way, by hating it first, and trying my best to destroy it. I learned
> through trying to put anything-but-capitalism into effect, by trying it out
> on a small scale, or seeing others try. In each case, anti-capitalism
> returned my love with nothing but a slap to the face, whereas capitalism
> returned rewards despite my loathing for it. For instance, while I was
> active trying to put consensus decision-making into practice, I had two
> friends who were both involved in anti-poverty programs. One roused the
> Third-World workers of a certain factory in a certain Third-World state to
> go on strike against the international corporation that ran the factory. The
> corporation moved the factory to Vietnam and they all lost their jobs. Of
> course, you could blame capitalism for that (Vietnam, as we all know, fought
> a long war for the right to become a capitalist paradise), which we all did,
> promptly and loudly. But meanwhile, the other friend was working with the
> Grameen bank to give out micro-loans. The poor people prospered and started
> their own businesses. The first activist, who had gotten the factory closed,
> decided to try Grameen loans with her community (those who would still speak
> to her). She was a little worried, though, and asked the second activist,
> "But... loans to start new businesses... isn't that capitalism?" (She, like
> all of us, belonged to the anything-but-capitalism school.) The second
> activist reassured her, "Oh, no, not at all. Well. A little. But it really
> works!"

I love micro-loans!! One of my favorite companies is working with
these guys and it's really exciting to watch.

> A lightbulb went off in my head. Not a big one. More like Christmas-light
> size bulb. It took many more strings of little colored lights from all
> different sources to convince me that capitalism, like democracy, is a lousy
> system of economy, but better than all the rest. If you have a system that
> works better, I'm all for it, but I'd like proof, not promises.

Amen sister!!

> 5. Future vs. Present
> For a hundred years or more we've heard promises that the human race is
> about to outgrow capitalism, but I suspect it is the other way around.

In a few ways (wikipedia, Linux, other open source) we are. The book
Free is full of ways that we can overcome capitalism locally... but
globally, I just don't think there is another way to make the world go
around. You can't get rid of money, that's not the solution. You could
make a pretty good start of things by simplifying the tax code... but
Mr. Cain has given us a good case study in what happens to you when
you attack that system. (Whether he did what he is being accused of or
not.)

> I suspect that there is so much opposition to capitalism because the human
> race has yet to grow INTO it.

This is an interesting thought, and I would really like to hear more
on this point, if you can manage a reply...

> In every nation that is touched by capitalism
> and democracy, and the industrial revolution and demographic revolution that
> accompanies that dangerous duo, certain individuals (and often certain
> ethnic groups) prosper first, because they are better able to grasp the
> opportunities. Naturally, this creates a backlash of anger, indeed, burning
> hatred, against them. They are denounced as thieves and villains, even if
> their activities actually raise the standard of living of all those around
> them. In Nigeria, they have a saying, "The child who brings back the most
> wood will be accused of collecting it from a taboo forest." The person who
> earns less than you is pitied; the person who earns more than you is
> resented.

Yes, success is always resented.. but for a time in America it was
also admired and sought for. I fear that time is passing with the OWS
type movements. I was shocked a few months back to see a young person
wearing a T-shirt that actually said, "Eat the Rich"... wow, that's
misguided!

> It would be wonderful indeed if we could live in a world where we had
> neither to pity nor resent our neighbors, but what system would this be? The
> great achievement of capitalism is to coordinate reciprocal altruism on a
> scale of billions.

OK... I can't let this pass without comment... In the immortal words
of Inigo Montoia... I do not think that word means what you think it
means...

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
"Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional
virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious
traditions, though the concept of 'others' toward whom concern should
be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism is the
opposite of selfishness.

Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty.
Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who
must be anyone but the self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation
towards a specific individual (for example, a god, a king), or
collective (for example, a government). Some individuals may feel both
altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism consists of
giving something of value[citation needed] (a reward or benefit) with
no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or
indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).

The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims
that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this
sense, it is the opposite of egoism."

Capitalism is the exact opposite of reciprocal altruism. It is
reciprocal self interest. That it benefits everyone is a side effect.
More people have been helped by self interest than by charity, for
example. Reading some of the writings of Ayn Rand, while strident in
the extreme, will beat at least this true point into your head.

> What system can replace this? Most attempts to replace
> capitalism have appealed to the sentiments of mutual care that we all know
> (I hope) from the family, where members love each other unconditionally, and
> sacrifice even their very lives for one another without hesitation. We may
> feel this way also for our dear friends, and possibly, members of our
> cultural/religious community, who share ideas so closely with us that they
> are like family. But it is very hard to scale up. Even our soldiers, who
> give their lives for their nation, expect to be paid for the honor. The fact
> is that we are not ants, or coral reefs, with millions of members so closely
> genetically related that Darwin's law helps us help each other.

Just so.

> In the West, we citizens are not only of different families, but of
> different tribes, different races, different religions, different
> world-views. And so attempts to found an economy on the altruism specific to
> the family (evolved through kin selection) always ends in one of two ways:
> back at capitalism, or down the road to authoritarianism. If you will not
> pay your neighbor for his labor, he will not give it to you unless you
> enslave him. So the USSR and Nazi Germany became slave camps; while the
> Oneida commune and Israeli kibbutzim became corporations.

Perhaps you do get it, and your use of the word altruism was a mis-statement.

> How does any of this relate to transhumanism? I fear it is quite at the
> heart of the future. If transhumans become an entirely separate species, or
> collection of species, attempts to appeal to family models of economics (kin
> based altruism) will be even more doomed to fail. The fall-back position of
> organizing through mass enslavement will be an ongoing temptation. The only
> humane alternative is capitalism. Money is blind to your race, your
> religion, your politics or your gender, or even whether you are human at
> all. (Isn't that what everyone hates about it?) But this is exactly why it
> is what can guarantee that transhumans and AIs and humans and whatever will
> be, can still live in peace, as neighbors, in democratic societies of the
> future, each earning his/her/its own living in his/her/its own way without
> hurting anyone else by his/her/its industry. But I predict there will be
> blood shed in the name of "brotherly" love before that is allowed to
> happen.

I am very fearful of racism or specie-ism infiltrating into the minds
of AGI. It's one of the most pernicious ideas. While I usually have
quite a bit of disdain for PETA, I find myself now a days reevaluating
my position, for as we treat animals today, we may well be expected to
be treated tomorrow. Granting some rights to animals now, may preserve
human rights in the future, when we are no longer the dominant life
form on earth... it's food for thought anyway. Pass the steak and all
you can eat shrimp!

-Kelly