[ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is government going?

[The Avantguardian]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 6:38:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is government going?
 
Rafal, I have far to busy in recent times to do more than browse this list, but 
I cannot let this stand.
 
> This is the basis for my saying that environmental concerns are
> trivial - the harms inflicted on humans add a minuscule amount to the
> price of a commodity whose value is measured in trillions of dollars.
> Economic analysis tells us what matters and what is a trifle.

I am not going to address fracking here because I don't know the relevant data. 
But what you are saying here is repugnant. First of all environmental concerns 
are only trivial to you when it is not *your* environment. If I were to start 
dumping nuclear waste or even simple sewage into your yard, you would no longer 
think it was a trivial concern. Even if I dumped it on property that was not 
your own but just happened to be upstream or upwind of you, you would still 
complain. And when you say that causing your fellow man to suffer is simply 
overhead to be factored into next quarter's budget tells me you have 
no discernible conscience that I can see. My health and wellbeing are 
priceless to me; albeit perhaps worthless to you.
 
And as far as economics goes, it models networked entities composed of more 
cells than there are dollars in the world as a bunch of "rational 
fools". Then models their complex biological and psychological motivations 
are as simply wanting to consume more of everything. This gross 
over-simplification of very complex systems makes me vacillate between viewing 
economics as a pseudoscience and a logically consistent set of 
mathematical theorems based on axioms I don't agree with. Ergo my understanding 
of the old chestnut that an "economist knows the price of everything and the 
value of nothing."
 
> I am surprised that you are surprised about the burden of proof.
> Obviously, if you claim to be harmed by somebody, it is incumbent on
> you to prove causation. If I find my house has been burglarized, *I*
> have to find proof against a specific person, rather than going around
> and demanding that random parties prove they didn't rob me. In modern
> legal theory the burden of proof is usually on the accuser, not on the
> defendant.

Not quite true, Rafal. If you are burglarized, the *state* has to find proof of 
the accused's guilt. At most you have to miss a few days of work to testify in 
court against him. And they don't send the bill to you but to the tax payer.
 
> That wiki post you linked to BTW is full of anecdote and eco-freak
> propaganda, one has to look closely for any grain of truth there.
> Vanadium, yeah, sure.

Ecofreaks, Rafal? The people you are refering to to simply don't want you to 
piss in their drinking water. 

Stuart LaForge 


"There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, 
and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower