<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/08/2012 14:37, Stefano Vaj wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPoR7a5Q_Lx=w+1raQVA7PvBReWJLQPLu5gEimAEFraj4vEUYA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Charlie Stross<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:charlie.stross@gmail.com">charlie.stross@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Or even further: *why* do we consider it useful or
morally good for everyone to make a tangible contribution?<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
For instance, a very traditional view is that a given community is
automatically entitled to demand that its members support each
other and the community as such.<br>
<br>
This is certainly true for anthills, eg, and human communities
factually governed by such views might even have an
evolutionary/game theory/memetic edge on other ones.<br>
<br>
In history, however, this contribution never needed be "tangible"
in the literal sense of the word. In fact, division of labours
allowed societies to have members specialised and permanently
engaged in poetry, history, medicine, politics, religion,
mathematics, writing, advocacy, trade, etc.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I think it is possible to make a social signalling argument here.
(Channeling my model of Robin Hanson:) Doing something good for the
other group members is of course good for them, even though it is
costly for you. If everybody does it you benefit anyway, thanks to
group economies of scale. But there is always a temptation to be a
defector. Hence we look down on people who visibly do not
contribute. <br>
<br>
But even when we actually don't contribute we might do things that
*signal* contribution. In fact, doing costly signalling is very
convincing: if the poet spends so much time on writing, then we
assume it must be a valuable contribution even though we do not
understand the poem. Yeah, it is not useful, but it happens to be
very patriotic. Or so he tells me. Of course, if he is not
convincing he will be kicked out, so he will be motivated to make it
look like he is essential. <br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University </pre>
</body>
</html>