[ExI] win-win was Re: (no subject)

[Stuart LaForge]

Quoting Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>:

> Yes, this kind of win-lose survival of the fittest game currently being
> imposed by leaders of hierarchies is necessary to boot ourselves up from
> nothing.  But now that we have finally become "intelligent" we can switch
> from this win-lose hierarchical game to a bottom up win-win game driven by
> intelligent design.  Instead of the goal being what the guy at the top
> wants, all else being destroyed or consumed, the goal can become what
> everyone at the bottom wants, win-win.

It is not so much as what "the guy at the top" wants as much a it is  
what nature demands. Its all fun and games until the bill becomes due.  
If everybody gets a trophy in socialist utopia, then somebody still  
has to pay for those trophies.

> Our goal with Canonizer is to reverse this inbred tendency to fear monger
> against everyone but the guy at the top with bleating and tweeting mobs,
> and switch to an intelligent win - win focus on what everyone wants.
> All we need is a good consensus building and tracking system which can
> scale to become large enough to outcompete the established hierarchies, and
> the ability to overcome this inbred desire to fight against any such switch.
>
> Brent

Your stated goal to people to use Canonizer to help "the bottom" get  
what they want is being undermined by the contempt for "the bleating  
and tweeting mobs" that you seem to evince. Maybe you should try a  
different tactic for trying to grow your social media platform than  
insulting people.

Stuart LaForge

>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:16 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> I know this is an unpopular view here, but humans evolved for wars.
>> Turns out that genes do better in a resource crisis by killing
>> neighbors and taking their resources than they do by starving in
>> place.  (The reason genes do better is that the winners absorb the
>> young women of the losers and through them the genes of the dead
>> warriors.)
>>
>> The most divergent humans, the San people, may have missed this
>> selection.  But of the ones who left Africa, the cycle is for the
>> population to expand until there is a resource crisis, then a war,
>> then another expansion.  Rinse, repeat.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 8:50 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
>> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I think the simplest explanation is that ultimately, there are no
>> morals. They are created when several self-conscious, human beings meet
>> reality.
>>>
>>> This is about as vague as you can get.  Reality is that we cannot live
>> alone effectively.  So when someone in a group harms another, the whole
>> group suffers - loss of warrior; loss of berry picker; loss of spear
>> chunker, and so on. What hurts an individual hurts the group.  Matthew
>> Ridley has a whole book on the subject of how morality forms.    All of his
>> books are excellent, like The Rational Optimist.    bill w
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:43 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Brent,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:25 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> >       On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Gadersd via extropy-chat wrote:
>>>> >       >> ask about why we want to live a long time.
>>>> >       >
>>>> >       > That seems an odd thing to have to explain. Life is good, no?
>>>> >
>>>> >       I always find these immortality discussions very strange. For
>> me, it is
>>>> >       not about immortality per se, but about choice. Being able to
>> decide
>>>> >       yourself when you had enough.
>>>> >
>>>> > Being about choice is a good point.  But if that is the only point,
>> are you saying that morality is relative, or that there is no
>>>> > morality, right or wrong, good or bad... choice?
>>>>
>>>> Good question! On the surface, I am all about freedom and free informed
>>>> consent and very libertarian.
>>>>
>>>> On a deeper level, which I find more interesting, I think the simplest
>>>> explanation that ultimately, there are no morals. They are created when
>>>> several self-conscious, human beings meet reality.
>>>>
>>>> I do not have a hard position on this, so I welcome a vigorous debate
>>>> here to inspire me! =)
>>>>
>>>> > Seems to me choosing to end things is necessarily a
>> bad/wrong/mistaken... choice.
>>>>
>>>> Why? It is your life, and given the circumstances, why should you not be
>>>> allowed to choose to end it if you so want and are of a sound and
>>>> healthy mind?
>>>>
>>>> > Seems to me, survival is always, necessarily, better than not
>> surviving.  That is why evolution must progress in all sufficiently
>>>> > complex worlds?
>>>>
>>>> I can imagine many situations where I would probably choose to end my
>>>> life. So I do not think, for me, that survival trumps everything,
>>>> everytime.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Daniel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>