[ExI] Ossification (Was: riots)

[Omar Rahman]

On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:35 PM, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:

>> 
>> ... On Behalf Of Charlie Stross
> ...
> 
>> ...The real problem, though, is to find ways of destabilizing rigid
> structures while encouraging social fluidity and minimizing inequality of
> both opportunity and outcomes...-- Charlie
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Charlie I have an idea regarding a way to destabilize rigid structures and
> encourage social fluidity etc, starting in your field, professional writing.
> There is no need to minimize inequality of opportunity in writing: everyone
> has an opportunity to do that currently.  So we are already halfway there,
> however the other half, inequality of outcomes in that profession is
> enormous.  To minimize this, alongside the best seller list, we create a
> worst seller list.  Clearly those on the worst seller list aren't enjoying
> equality of outcome with those on the other list, so I propose that whenever
> any customer goes to buy an item on the best seller list, they receive
> instead an item on the worst seller list.  That scheme would minimize
> inequality of outcome, starting in the field of writing, then we are on the
> road to encouraging social fluidity and minimizing inequality, problem
> solved.
> 
> spike


Spike, please refer to: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Real inequality of outcomes is much more complex and is caused by some sort of external semi-permeable membrane barrier which allows some to enjoy success while inhibiting or making impossible the success of others. The 'glass ceiling' and the pay differentials for equal work between men and women are good examples of this. The Civil Rights Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act are reasonable responses to this example of an unequal outcome. A best seller list, however has no such power to impede the success of writers and in fact new writers routinely join current 'best seller' lists and rise to even higher levels of success through this exposure.

Social mobility, destabilising rigid structures, learning, etc. are what it's all about. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest; those most adaptable to change. As we prepare for the next stage in evolution, in which we will be able to design not only our descendants but also the environment that they live in, there is a tremendous urge to rig the system. This urge may even be some sort of hard coded impulse to ensure our progeny's survival. The only  rational response to this situation, when we know the general principle of evolution, is to seek out and embrace differences and encourage adaptability. Ossification is a viable strategy during periods of stability, but if the ossification and optimisation goes too deep and you lose too much adaptability you are at risk from smaller and smaller perturbations to your environment.

In his play, 'No Exit', Sartre concluded that 'hell is other people'. While he missed the point that heaven is probably other people too, he does have something there. In a future where competitors can consciously evolve/adapt themselves to exploit your weaknesses or the environment better than you; detecting and then minimising inequality of both opportunities and outcomes will be an essential survival skill. Detecting and then minimising inequality of both opportunities and outcomes is practically a generalised fitness function for a generalised genetic algorithm. That is our future, as genetic algorithms that set their own fitness functions. External people will have inter-subjective effects, and reality will have its objective effects, but by and large we will be able to change as we see fit. Just as consciousness developed over vast periods of time from simple reaction to stimuli, our sense of evolution is probably similarly developed as some organism's reaction to stimuli. Our, 'Hey, she is sexy!', is probably as comparably advanced as a clam's reaction to vibration. Evolution is going from the result of a group's survival through change to an active individual process of preparation for change.

Inequality is matters in its context; in virtual spaces inequality matters not only according to the rules of that place but also according to its secondary objective effects on the objective entity operating in the virtual space , however in objective reality inequality is primary and cannot be mitigated by layers of abstraction. Therefore, inequality must be dealt with if you wish to prosper in the real world.

Best regards,

Omar Rahman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120928/24cb224a/attachment.html>