[extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution?
pkbertine at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 3 19:31:41 UTC 2006
Hold on! Hold ! On ! I hate smiley faces but there was a big tongue in
cheek smiley face. I'm sorry it fell flat. A person's worth is based upon
the effort they put into bettering themselves and those around them. It is
in no way based upon money. Sorry. My bad joke.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:10 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution?
> Pete Bertine pkbertine at hotmail.com :
> >I knew you'd get me on the last paragraph. It was late and I was
> >trying to sleep after an exciting www.svn.org meeting. I concede the
> >point to you, I am an obnoxious little prick sometimes and in the end
> >a person's worth isn't decided by their knowledge of cell phone
> >technology or automotive experience but by how much money they make.
> I don't think highly of that measure either.
> Most of the world is not as "rich" (which begs a definition) as the
> U.S. and so to compare incomes you must factor in living expenses and
> incomes. For that reason, The Economist publishes periodically their
> Big Mac Index, in order to more easily compare prices between
> 2006 Big Mac Index
> Moreover, you are placing your highest life value on money, which is a
> shaky value. We've talked about that too,
> From The Economist article: The Quality of Life Index
> "The role of income
> The aim is to supplement not supplant real GDP. We find that GDP per
> person explains more than 50% of the inter-country variation in life
> satisfaction, and the estimated relationship is linear. Surveys show
> that even in rich countries people with higher incomes are more
> satisfied with life than those with lower incomes. In 24 out of 28
> countries surveyed by Eurobarometer, material wellbeing is identified
> as the most important criterion for life satisfaction.
> However, over several decades there has been only a very modest
> upward trend in average life-satisfaction scores in developed
> nations, whereas average income has grown substantially. There is no
> evidence for an explanation sometimes proffered for the apparent
> paradox of increasing incomes and stagnant life-satisfaction scores:
> the idea that an increase in someone's income causes envy and reduces
> the welfare and satisfaction of others. In our estimates, the level
> of income inequality had no impact on levels of life satisfaction.
> Life satisfaction is primarily determined by absolute, rather than
> relative, status (related to states of mind and aspirations).
> The explanation is that there are factors associated with
> modernisation that, in part, offset its positive impact. A concomitant
> breakdown of traditional institutions is manifested in the decline of
> religiosity and of trade unions; a marked rise in various social
> pathologies (crime, and drug and alcohol addiction); a decline in
> political participation and of trust in public authority; and the
> erosion of the institutions of family and marriage. In personal terms,
> this has also been manifested in increased general uncertainty and an
> obsession with personal risk. These phenomena have accompanied rising
> incomes and expanded individual choice (both of which are highly
> valued). However, stable family life and community are also highly
> valued and these have undergone a severe erosion."
> BTW, My income falls way below poverty level by US standards. By your
> measure, then, I would be an inferior person. That still sounds obnxious,
> and I maintain that you won't sell ideas to people by insulting them.
> >So, in a very real sense, I am Transhuman. I'm certainly heavily
> >augmented by science and technology. 300 mg of Depakote, 75 mg of
> >Effexor, 40 mg of Geodon, 1mg of Proscar, up to 3 mg of clonazepam
> >(usually only 1mg) for anxiety, some wine and a beer every now and
> >again... and with the help of my doctor I manage to stay in a steady
> >state just below hypomania. This incredible cocktail has taken an
> >enormous amount of *trying* and time.
> OK, I'm convinced about your trying. The word 'aptitude' is more often
> in colloquial usage for a fitness related to a willingness to try,
> rather than a physical fitness. I can understand that math is
> difficult for you from a physical fitness sense.
> >I have changed the environment of my mind so that I can successfully
> >control the environment around me.
> Sorry, control is an allusion. There are some things that humans can
> do, even more things if they try. But to successfully "control the
> environment" is impossible.
> >I see around me multitudes who have no idea how the artificial and
> >natural environment around them works. I have no patience for them.
> >*They* aren't trying.
> Do you *know* "the multitudes" ? Why should anyone have patience for
> you, when you have no patience "for the multitudes" ?
> Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com
> Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
> Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/
> "Treat people as if they are what they ought to be, and you will help
> them become what they are capable of being. --Ashleigh Brilliant
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat