[ExI] Terraforming Earth
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 7 23:35:54 UTC 2017
stuart wrote; I mean there will predictably be oligarchs, but the oligarchs
How often do we see truly exceptional individuals create something
wonderful, get extremely rich, and have children who don't seem to get
whatever that parent had? Gene variability will insure that dynasties
won't last (and never have, much, unless they had tight control over the
military). Of course, history is not one of my areas, to say the least.
Which brings up the issue of estate taxes: Rockefeller's money is still
around. Why should his heirs get all that money for having done nothing?
Let the money go to people who will do something new with it.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> Tara Maya wrote:
> >If large corporations use money to influence governments to over-regulate
> >industries and censor free speech — which is what they are currently
> doing >both in the EU and in the US and even more in China — then this
> keeps out >competition. The competition is the ordinary people, who
> cannot make the >leap past the regulations and restrictions to create
> competitive products >with the big corporations. Furthermore, if most
> “ordinary people” actually >only survive day to day because of Universal
> Income, which I imagine would >keep them feed, maybe even fat, but not be
> enough to enable them to start a >company in a highly regulated
> environment, then it’s an even bigger >psychological leap for them to
> give up that money and risk starting their >own business.
> Universal Income and regulatory barriers to market entry are separate
> issues. One does not entail the other although the two together are a
> nasty combination. Why should they have to give up their Universal Income
> in order to start their own businesses if there is no law requiring it?
> >If people are raised by working parents who teach them how to work hard
> and >take risks, they will know that they can work hard and take risks.
> If they >are raised by parents — or, worse, a single parent — who has
> never worked >either, then who is to raise them with the values of
> courage and >self-reliance needed to create something new and daring?
> Boredom can spawn courage almost as well as desperation. And novelty is
> its own reward. People will adapt or become irrelevant.
> >This is the way an entire culture becomes apathetic and stagnant once the
> >divide between rich and poor becomes too large. I believe that most
> people >who propose a Universal Income see this danger, actually, and
> don’t want a >huge divide between a few wealthy oligarchs and a mass of
> ordinary people, >but think that a Universal Income can stop this. That’s
> why I just wanted >to say that I think the exact opposite is true,
> because a Universal Income >can never bridge the gap in a way that true
> market freedom can.
> You can have both a free market and UI and there never need be a shortage
> of novel goods and services for you to spend your UI on. UI could instead
> be the rain that encourages seeds to grow. Think of it as dividends paid
> for ownership of "stock" in the entire economy with one share per person.
> >I should admit, however, that in a true free market, you’d still have a
> >huge divide between super-rich and super poor, so on the surface, it
> >wouldn’t be obviously better. It’s only better if you look at the
> society >over several generations, because that’s when you’d see that in
> a free >society, the composition of “rich” and “poor” is constantly
> changing, >whereas in a stagnant society, you’d have the same 200
> families ruling for >a thousand years.
> I think you underestimate the volatility of humanity. There have been 198
> empires in recorded history to date. Only 3 of which have survived more
> than a thousand years. Even if ruling families don't murder each other
> quite to the same extent that they used to, I don't see the same state of
> political affairs in place for a thousand years. Not unless society
> stumbles onto something on par with Pharaonic Egypt. Which is highly
> I mean there will predictably be oligarchs, but the oligarchs should
> change. But then again with AI who knows?
> >I forgot to add — is there a way we can make the tropics a healthy place
> >for dense human habitation, in a way that actually preserves or even
> >increases biodivisity in the ecology? Rather than cut down rainforests,
> can >we find a way to build around and with rainforests? Could we even
> create >hothouse skyscrappers that create islands of rainforest in other
> parts of >the world, even the tundra? Imagine if you walked into a
> skyscrapper in the >middle of a big city, and instead of floors and
> offices, you saw tropical >trees, monkeys, parrots? Or redwoods, ferns
> and owls?
> Sure we could. Aesthetics are marketable, therefore beautiful life-forms
> should thrive in a free market.
> >It would be nice if our niche, as a species, could be one of enabling
> >greater biodiversity, rather than our current role, of instigating the
> >sixth great extinction.
> Great extinctions are part of the natural order. If it is our destiny to
> bring about the sixth, then so be it. From destruction springs creation,
> new niches needing filling, surviving creatures adapting, radiating,
> generating new and greater biodiversity.
> Blessed are the losers; for they are the martyrs of evolution.
> Stuart LaForge
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat