janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[hurst@grc97.UUCP ] /* ---------- "free market economy and state inter" ---------- */ >In following the current discussion between Wingate and nrh about >Libertarian economy, I thought I would post the following list of terms. >[...] A worthwhile attempt. >THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through >the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by >coercion). Not enough: criminals do that, too. State, however, claims a *monopoly* of coercion. >ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market operates >freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of >coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market >people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. >LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily >choose to cooperate more often than to compete. If by "right anarchists" you mean anarchocapitalists, then I doubt that your definition is true of them. Competition *is* an integral part of their prediction, but so is cooperation. Two sellers compete; a buyer and a seller cooperate; in particular a labor seller and a labor buyer (employer) do; so do partners. Rather, "right anarchists" predict that people would choose to cooperate through trade; and "left anarchists" that they would choose to cooperate without it. Of course, mixed predictions are possible, too. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[mccarthy@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU ] >>Sure, let's preserve genetic diversity: let's stock our zoos, >>collect seeds, freeze some animal sperm and eggs for future >>use. Wilson's statement, however, is ridiculous. Species die out >>all the time, with or without human help. A few hundred or >>thousand species is a drop in the ocean. And we will soon start >>creating new species. The problem is of *some* importance but >>has no relevance whatsoever to population control. > Prior to increase in human ability to destroy the environment, species >died out at an average rate of about 2 per century. Now it's in the >thousands and increasing. Whether your figure of 2 is right or not (a reference would be ap- preciated) it is irrelevant to my argument. It was that subtract- ing thousands out of many millions does not reduce genetic diver- sity much. It was also that artificial methods can preserve genetic diversity, without hindering technical progress or popu- lation growth. It also was that other artificial methods can ac- tually increase genetic diversity, and do it fast. >The arrogance inherent in your anthropocentric chauvinism A nice bit of McCarthyism :-) But I suspect your labels could be expanded into a philosophical argument - though incorrect. >is exceeded only by the myopia exhibited by your belief that hu- >man life in a world barren of ecological diversity would not be >dreadfully impoverished. Ecological diversity is not necessarily reduced by civilization. Artificial habitats are habitats too, and they can be very diverse. > John McCarthy Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[rdh@sun.UUCP ] >>Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of one's >>own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved unless >>you want all other rights to go. Even the less extreme forms of >>slavery respect it. It includes the right to conceive and the right >>not to abort. Together, they form the right to procreate. >Well, Jan, you took the bait. I usually do. >First of all, if childbirth were parthenogenic, then you would be >entirely correct that a right to do so could be logically in- >ferred from one's own rights. HOWEVER, it ISN'T. There are sperm banks. However, this is not essential to my argument. If a man is free to dispose of his, and a woman of her body - that is enough to guarantee conception rights to an agreeing pair. >Therefore you could reasonably conclude that (if it is decided at >all and not just an accident--in this day there is absolutely no >need for such accidents) childbearing comes the result of a JOINT >DECISION BETWEEN two RESPONSIBLE ADULTS. *Hopefully* responsible... >You could reasonably assert that childbearing is a PRIVILEDGE >that adults confer upon one another by association, since it can >be preempted simply by the withdrawal of consent or participation >by one or the other adults before a child comes. Only by *all* adults of the other sex. No one has cornered the sperm or the egg market. But even if *one* particular person's consent is necessary - the "society" involved is a *pair*. >(Afterwards, if they want to back out or can't cut it, it's >everybody's problem, and that includes YOU Jan.) Sure, people can make problems for everyone in many ways... One can fall sick by overeating and burden medical facilities. This does not mean that overeating should be made illegal. John Doe sells short in a bull market, and becomes eligible for foodstamps. The *problem* is the taxpayer's now - but the *right* to sell was Doe's. >If a pair consistently refuses to act in a responsible manner, as >with any privilege in society, So far you only claimed that *one* member of the pair bestows the "privilege" of child-bearing on the other, not "society" on the pair. I prefer to think of it as of two people commonly exercis- ing a *right*. In either case, "society" has no say in this, and can go fly a kite. > steps may have to be taken to limit the damage Not at all. When damage comes from no rights violation, coercive "steps" are impermissible. E.g., X's girlfriend Y finds another boyfriend. The damage to X's ego, his happiness, perhaps his health - perhaps his life - may be tremendous. Yet his *rights* are not violated, and he would not be justified in locking Y up to prevent it happening. >they cause, even though no individual (except perhaps their chil- >dren) can place a specific monetary figure on the damage done to >him. This is why relatives and friends are invited to weddings -- >to assert the community's faith in their judgement, and their >support for the children should disaster strike. And this is why, >perfunctory though it is, you still need a license to get married >(and by implication, have "legitimate" children). That's right: when you need something from relatives or the state or Mrs Grundy that they may legitimately withhold - e.g. their approval - then you may have to pay for it by modifying your behavior. >This also means, Jan, that those two people can entangle you in >their problems, just by having more children than they can sup- >port. Isn't that nice! If you want to preserve your independence, >and not get voted out of your pay, you'd better make sure you let >those adults know that it would be a damn good idea for them to >have only the number of children they can reasonably expect to >support. That's a different problem, and here there is some agreement. The present welfare system is a mess from both your point of view, and mine, and most others. Currently people are paid to have children and to raise them as total misfits. You'd prefer the poor to have fewer children - I'd rather have the kids (few or many) raised reasonably - which would *also* reduce the burden on "society". Either goal can be pursued by coercive *or* non-coercive means. >If slave holders don't restrict childbirth amongst slaves, that's >probably because they view the children as an "economic resource" >in a much less abstract fashion than I think you mean by the >words. Which creates an incentive for them to *breed* slaves coercively. "Less extreme" forms of slavery don't do that - to their credit. Neither do they practice castration, though eunuchs can be an "economic resource". >Knowing how you react to the idea of slavery, I'd suggest your >rethink your view of unrestricted population growth. People can >be enslaved much more readily when demand for basic life-support >far exceeds supply. Keep your mind open and keep thinking about >it. I appreciate your restrained and constructive style. However, the two questions - is population growth good or bad, and is coercive regulation of it permissible - are orthogonal. All four combinations of the answers are possible. As for thinking and reading on the subject, I am doing that. Let me tentatively recommend The Ultimate Resource by Julian L. Simon. I've only just bought it, but it seems good. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[radford@calgary.UUCP ] >In article <559@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >> [Jan Wasilewsky] >> >Oded's proposal [ easy euthanasia] is non-coercive. But it is morally I took the liberty to correct a typo (not mine) in the brackets... >> >preferable even >> >compared to encouraging voluntary population control. What are the >> >malthusians afraid of? That people may be brought into the world >> >whose life will be not worth living? Well, let *them* be the judges >> >of that. >>[Richard Carnes's response] >My guess is that Jan meant this as a satire on Carnes' utilitarian >philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number. >For those who don't believe Jan meant this as satire, I will point out >that effective means of suicide have never been hard to come by, so this >isn't much of a "proposal". A "decriminalized but not legalized" case. But I made my position clear many times. I like people; I welcome more of them around; I think they make more living space for each other than they take; but I also think birth and death ought to be private. I am *not* into social tinkering of either population- reducing or population-increasing kind. The "proposal" is in the nature of a challenge to the other side of the debate: if you want that, say I, then you ought to prefer this. Of course an element of satire is there (as the title makes clear). Richard is quite right, however, to debate the points as they stand. Satirical context makes no difference to logic or facts. If you say something, and I counter: "on your lines, I can prove that pigs can fly" - the proper answer is not "gee, you're being funny" - but "no, you can't, and here's why". Utilitarianism is not my basic approach: but I believe that, con- sistently followed, it leads to libertarian conclusions, as it often did in the hands of Mill. Liberty for all and happiness for most are *not* antagonistic. >I also note that the title of the posting, "A Modest Proposal", >was first used by Jonathan Swift in advocating that Irish babies >be eaten. Exactly. To make it even clearer: I don't recommend committing or en- couraging suicide. If I did, I would do it for the sake of the person involved - not to relieve traffic congestion (like that governor who said old people have a duty to die). But even *that* is less heinous than imposed birth control. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[colonel@sunybcs.UUCP ] >> Ideas are abstract in different degree. The rudiments of intelligence >> existing in an amoeba may not deserve the name of ideas; but >> do its rudiments of emotion deserve names such as love? >I don't believe that our emotions are necessarily less rude than >an amoeba's. Do you equate rude and rudimentary? I'd say rudimentary rudeness is less rude than fully developed rudeness... >The amoeba just loves fewer things: plenty of food Now I know which of the definitions of love proposed here you are using: it is "extending the boundaries of self to include the loved object"! >and a clean environment. As it happens, we love them too. It's a >bond between us. I love it already (with an unrequited love...) >> > ... I foresee difficulties in expressing emotion >> >at 1200 baud ... >> >> Ever read the late net.flame? Or, for that matter, the extant groups? >Of course--that's why I foresee difficulties! True, there is a lot of >cruelty on the Net, and some kindness. Those aren't emotions, though. I don't see why... >And flaming isn't a direct expression of hate or anger. It's just a >calculated response. The objects do not perceive the flamers' emotions >directly. Directly ? Only ESP (if that) could do that. > The Net would be a scarier place if they did! (But maybe better for it.) Let's wait till everyone gets a bit nicer. >In fact, teddy bears have it all over computers when it >comes to A.E.! There's something to that. But computers are evolving faster than teddy bears... >Sure, computers are better with words. But that matters only for >people whose emotions are triggered mainly by words. (Come to >think of it, that probably includes a lot of Net users. |-) There may be something to that, too. But why do netters knock the net so much? No one praises it, yet they stay. >> You might say [the program] doesn't *really* feel the emotion - but the >> same objection is made about its thinking. >Wrongly, I believe. It manipulates symbols; that's certainly a form >of thinking. (Nowadays the controversy is usually phrased in terms of >consciousness rather than thinking.) That is, does it think it thinks? > And the emotions are still bogus. Summarizing your estimates: amoebas - can feel, can't think; computers - can think, can't feel; teddy bears - can't think, feel a bit better than computers; net posters - neither think nor feel. >> Your implied objection is that emotion is not expressed in words alone >> - but neither is intelligence. Remember Charles, " our noble king, >> Whose word no man relies on. He never said a foolish thing, >> And never did a wise one" ? >That's why I brought up the electric-eye door. Of course, one can ask >whether the door is acting intelligently _in its own interest!_ Is a doorman? No, the door is a good example. >> The Imitation Game is crooked, but it's the only game in town... >It's been pretty well torn to pieces by Keith Gunderson. Shredding it is easy - but has a substitute been found? >It's only the philosophers who ask whether computers can think. >What ordinary people desperately want to know is: In bleak moments I sometimes feel that ordinary people know no better than the experts... > 1. How can computers help us? That's easy: they provide us with jobs. > 2. How can computers hurt us? They do terrible things to Parkinson's law. The growth of paper- work has accelerated immensely since it's not on paper any more. > "I'll have to make this short; I'm double-parked." > "I deduce that you are a car. How did you learn to type so well?"
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[carnes@gargoyle.UUCP ] >>Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of one's >>own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved unless >>you want all other rights to go. Even the less extreme forms of >>slavery respect it. >Are government-mandated vaccinations and immunizations ever >justifiable, in your view? No. A good point: the right I claim as basic has already been punc- tured in some cases. The reason the populace has permitted this is, I suppose, that few people saw this as *damage* - and few people make a stand on a point of pure principle, or even *no- tice* it. With sterilization it is quite different, politically. Prohibition of Nazi propaganda in the USA would probably not an- tagonize many people or bring democracy down - yet freedom of speech *is* a basic right on which other rights depend. Damage to rights is cumulative. Let me argue against mandatory vaccination from an utilitarian point of view (which I take to be yours). We were lucky that this pre-scientific invention turned out all right, so far. What if all who got it died out in three generations - or seven? Had it been strictly voluntary, *most* people would still have done it. It would still have been enough to prevent epidemics. But *some* people would stay in reserve. Of course, a mandatory program could exempt some people on purpose. An advantage of freedom is that it produces diversity even when no one thinks of it. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/25/86)
[michael : m128abo@brahms.UUCP ] [John] >>> The average value of philosophy in the states can be approximate- >>> ly measured by the number of philosophy books you can find in >>> bookstores. The current theme appears to be " business manage- >>> ment " and " self help ". Both these fields are symptomatic, and >>> actually contain little or no insight into modern problems. >> For this reason philosophers ought to be grateful to Ayn Rand, whose >> philosophy books are in the bookstores and sell. That can open the >> market to others - e.g., those who would criticize her. >> Even the cheap mysticism now flooding the shelves opens the way to >> people who would start with debunking it, then propose their own >> ideas. > Do you think that the presence of all that cheap mysticism has > opened the market to truly worthwhile mysticism? That's possible ; but I was speaking of rationalist critique of mysticism. >I'm about as sure of the answer to this question as I am that >Rand's misosophy has been opening doors to worthwhile philosophy. Do you really mean misosophy == "hatred of wisdom" - rather than "bad", or "pseudo-", philosophy? I did not say Rand's books *did* that; but that they could, if others used the opportunity. Of course Rand's books are not the *only* ones that sell. E.g., Russell is read - because he could write. So is Nietzsche, a very different thinker - and a very different writer. >> A philosopher ought not to be snotty, but come to the readers and >> begin by discussing *their* concerns in plain English (or whatever >> the language of the land is). It is easier for philosophers to do >> than for anyone else, since philosophy is universal and applies to >> everything (including self-help and even business management). > Certain areas, like phenomenology or analytic philosophy, indeed > seem to be difficult to put into plain language. I'm not sure > whether that is intrinsic to the subject matter or whether it is > due to an affliction that tends to characterize those drawn to > these pursuits. Could also be a phase in the area's development. >>Those philosophers whose work is esoteric and unreadable cannot >>do it, but that's only fair. Why should laymen pay, directly or >>through taxes or through tuition fees, for someone else's hobby? > Frankly, I don't think discussion about academic funding > belongs here, Jan. I respect your opinion on this issue, but > *please* keep political discussions in net.politics.theory, the > newsgroup intended for such topics. Well, I didn't start it; and it seems to me that funding of phi- losophy belongs under both rubrics of funding and philosophy. However, rubrics are not worth arguing about - I give up. > Now as to the question of whether current philosophy is important > enough to be classified as important research, is it your > opinion that what you apparently cannot or will not understand What have *I* to do with it? ... Actually, I majored in mathemati- cal logic once, so *some* of the difficulties involved are reduced for me. Not all current philosophy is esoteric. Important to whom and in what sense? > ("esoteric or "nreadable") must obviously be somebody's idle > "hobby"? "Important" and "hobby" aren't opposites. One can work on an in- vention as a hobby; it may turn out very important. However, people who do not know that can't be expected to support it. Jan Wasilewsky
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/03/86)
In article <117400009@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > [my argument...] was that subtracting thousands out of many millions > [of species] does not reduce genetic diversity much. It was also that > artificial methods can preserve genetic diversity, without hindering > technical progress or population growth. It also was that other artificial > methods can actually increase genetic diversity, and do it fast. All three sentences are seriously in error. Subtracting thousands of species PER YEAR from millions DOES reduce genetic diversity by a great deal, because the losses are cumulative. And that's not even counting the losses due to elimination of populations as species ranges are whittled down to relicts and finally nothing. Artificial methods cannot preserve significant genetic diversity yet, as I have explaind in related articles in the past few days. Artifical methods cannot increase genetic diversity in a manner comparable to the results of evolution, as I have also explained in related articles in the past week or two. > >The arrogance inherent in your anthropocentric chauvinism > > A nice bit of McCarthyism :-) > > But I suspect your labels could be expanded into a philosophical > argument - though incorrect. Jan's real arrogance is that his lecturing is based in ignorance of biological facts. > Ecological diversity is not necessarily reduced by civilization. > Artificial habitats are habitats too, and they can be very diverse. Ecological diversity is much the same as species diversity. Artifical habitats do nothing (in less than thousands of years) to increase overall species diversity on the globe. I used to give Jan's political ideas the benefit of the doubt. But now I'm beginning to believe that they are based in the same ignorance that his ideas of biology are. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/07/86)
[mrh@cybvax0.UUCP ] >> [my argument...] was that subtracting thousands out of many millions >> [of species] does not reduce genetic diversity much. It was also that >> artificial methods can preserve genetic diversity, without hindering >> technical progress or population growth. It also was that other artificial >> methods can actually increase genetic diversity, and do it fast. >All three sentences are seriously in error. >Subtracting thousands of species PER YEAR from millions DOES reduce genetic >diversity by a great deal, because the losses are cumulative. That entirely depends on the number of years through which one projects the process - i.e., on one's ability to foresee the future. To claim a large cumulative effect is to claim powers of long-term prediction. They need to be demonstrated first. >Artificial methods cannot preserve significant genetic diversity yet, as I >have explaind in related articles in the past few days. *Yet* is an important word here. The context of my statement was the future. So, Mike is attacking a strawman. *Significant* is another important word. If a thousand lost species a year is "significant" (see Mike's statement above) - wouldn't he agree that preservation of a thousand species a year (e.g. in seeds) is "significant"? Or would he argue it's impos- sible? (The articles he mentioned haven't reached this site yet). >Artifical methods cannot increase genetic diversity in a manner >comparable to the results of evolution, as I have also explained >in related articles in the past week or two. I'll look out for them - *but* if Mike means "cannot" for all future - then he has a very heavy burden of proof. If he only claims they can't do it as *yet*, then this is *another* strawman. >> Ecological diversity is not necessarily reduced by >> civilization. Artificial habitats are habitats too, >Ecological diversity is much the same as species diversity. >Artifical habitats do nothing (in less than thousands of years) >to increase overall species diversity on the globe. Why in "less than thousands"? Civilization *has* existed for thousands of years. It may exist for more thousands. *Yet another* strawman. "Overall global species diversity" is not all that matters. Diversity of an ecological community may increase when new species are introduced to it by civilization. Artificial habitats create hitherto impossible communities of coexisting species - new ecologies; new populations with new evolutionary trends; new strains and varieties. >[Mike's ad-hominems omitted. Upmanship is even less interesting >than strawmanship] Surprisingly, he needs both, even though arguing on his own, biological, turf. The position he is defending must be weak indeed. Jan Wasilewsky
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/10/86)
In article <117400119@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >> [Jan's argument...] was that subtracting thousands out of many millions > >> [of species] does not reduce genetic diversity much. It was also that > >> artificial methods can preserve genetic diversity, without hindering > >> technical progress or population growth. It also was that other > >> artificial methods can actually increase genetic diversity, and do it fast. > > >All three sentences are seriously in error. [My argument.] > > >Subtracting thousands of species PER YEAR from millions DOES reduce genetic > >diversity by a great deal, because the losses are cumulative. > > That entirely depends on the number of years through which one > projects the process - i.e., on one's ability to foresee the > future. To claim a large cumulative effect is to claim powers of > long-term prediction. They need to be demonstrated first. The period of prediction for the destruction of tropical rainforests is from thirty to fifty years. That's estimating at current rates of destruction; the rate may increase significantly as third-world populations increase. And there won't be a temporary reprieve through discovery of new deposits: we can see all that there is. I note also that you've excised my second sentence about the loss of genetic diversity by the elimination of populations within species. Diversity can be lost even when a species isn't threatened with extinction. > >Artificial methods cannot preserve significant genetic diversity yet, as I > >have explaind in related articles in the past few days. > > *Yet* is an important word here. The context of my statement was > the future. So, Mike is attacking a strawman. Oh, so you have powers of long term prediction? They need to be demonstrated first. (And that assumes I buy Jan's "future context", which certainly isn't present in the passage he cited.) I'm not attacking a strawman: I'm attacking your wild claims. Put up some justification for them, or shut up. > *Significant* is another important word. If a thousand lost > species a year is "significant" (see Mike's statement above) - > wouldn't he agree that preservation of a thousand species a year > (e.g. in seeds) is "significant"? Or would he argue it's impos- > sible? (The articles he mentioned haven't reached this site yet). Go ahead and try to preserve the (probably several thousand) species that will be lost this year. How do you want to preserve the beetles? What about the undiscovered microrhyzial fungi that are required for the successful growth of the seeds you saved? What about the myriad undiscovered species: how will you know to preserve them? Is your idea of "significant" to save seeds of 1000 species a year of non-endangered plants? My meaning of significant here is qualitative: directed towards the problem. Preservation of too little or the wrong things is not significant because it doesn't make a dent in the problem. > >Artifical methods cannot increase genetic diversity in a manner > >comparable to the results of evolution, as I have also explained > >in related articles in the past week or two. > > I'll look out for them - *but* if Mike means "cannot" for all future - > then he has a very heavy burden of proof. > > If he only claims they can't do it as *yet*, then this is *another* > strawman. These have been mailed to Jan. "Cannot for all future"? And you have the NERVE to accuse me of straw men? Jan seems to think that by calling something a strawman (however improperly) he can dismiss it. We can't increase genetic diversity (as explained above) YET, and are not likely to be able to do so in the near future (when we will be readily able to utilize the diversity that is being destroyed right now. > >> Ecological diversity is not necessarily reduced by > >> civilization. Artificial habitats are habitats too, > > >Ecological diversity is much the same as species diversity. > >Artifical habitats do nothing (in less than thousands of years) > >to increase overall species diversity on the globe. > > Why in "less than thousands"? Civilization *has* existed for > thousands of years. It may exist for more thousands. *Yet another* > strawman. Fine. Name some new non-domesticated species that have evolved in artificial habitats. If our grandchildren have to wait thousands of years for new species to replace the ones exterminated by their grandparents, they might be resentful. > "Overall global species diversity" is not all that matters. > Diversity of an ecological community may increase when > new species are introduced to it by civilization. Overall global species diversity is much more important than the diversity of the individual ecological communities in the following way: we can easily monkey with individual ecological communities to try to increas or decrease their diversity BUT the only way we can really affect global diversity is to decrease it. And the fact is that diversity of ecological communities generally decreases when introduced species become established. Look at the extinctions due to the introduction of rats, mongoose, and various plant species around the world. > Artificial habitats create hitherto impossible communities of > coexisting species - new ecologies; new populations with new > evolutionary trends; new strains and varieties. This is such a broad and overall incorrect generalization that I'm appalled. Artificial habitats sometimes create previously impossible communities: usually only when exotic species are introduced. For example, artificial reefs have the same species as comparable surrounding communities. Buildings may have cliff-type communities, and yards may have disturbed-type communities (which is why cities have pigeons, and suburbs have raccoons and oppossums throughout most of the US.) I can't think of any "new" ecologies. Artificial habitats generally represent depauperate ecologies (cropland for example.) The component species generally fit into the exact same functional positions that they do in natural ecologies. Artifical habitats certainly do create new populations that could have new evolutionary trends, but only if they were maintained long enough. New strains and varieties are not genetically very different though. We should not trade species for strains and varieties. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh