There are a number of recognised methods for responding to a rhetorical challenge on the Internet; the tried-and-true casual obscenity, the ad hominem attack from the more literary aspiring as well as the usually devastating Fisking with the ultimate recourse being the dreaded Ban. Up to now, at least.
Followers of the LGF/Hot Air (and seemingly endless list of others) public conniptions of recent months duration will especially appreciate that a new form of literary response has arrived on the Blogging Scene - the Comic Retort. Frankly, I doubt there are all that many with the native talent/creative software skills required to pull this conversational gambit off well, which only serves to make the present example even more appreciated. As ever, opinions vary of course, but I for one offer credit for originality of the current example and look forward to future development of the literary form in future.
You takes your pleasure where you finds it as it were.
* Bonus credits to those who can identify the Pournelle/Niven novel in which the titular sentiment was originally expressed.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Games People Play
Update: Messed up the links; fixed now (I think).
Let me preface this by stipulating that I have precisely zero experience with digital games, and effectively the same with fantasy role-playing games regardless of format. That said, I do have some knowledge of their potential as more than personal time-sink/entertainment. Now comes my blog-friend Stephen Gordon with his own creation to challenge gamers everywhere.
Did I mention it's a free download?
Granted my lack of expertise with the subject, what I find most intriguing about Stephen's game is that it seems to encourage and reward creative adherence to historical accuracy amongst the players without requiring them to master a complex set of rules and guidelines prior to commencing play. One of the things I'm hoping those more experienced of the genre can ascertain is how much this is actually the case and how such a process might be reinforced without damaging the game-playing experience itself.
It has long been my personal belief that games of this nature could serve as instructional vehicles into the workings of language, mathematics and the sciences generally if having to master those (and other) subjects could be plausibly incorporated into an otherwise challenging game format. Think Halo, but the player has to accurately figure ballistic performance and blast coefficients in a given situation in order to advance into the highest (and most rewarding) stages of play. The same sort of structure could equally apply to multiple language fluency or application of the tenants of the physical sciences as well, I think (if you're old enough, a game in which every player has to demonstrate the talents of MacGuyver in order to best succeed). I suspect such an endeavor would work best as subsidiary elements within a more complex structure like that of the game Civilisation or the on-line environment The Sims or the like, but I don't think this is an actual requirement or reason not to create such games in the absence of a recognisable structure to place them within.
Again, I congratulate Stephen and look forward to more and better in future.
Let me preface this by stipulating that I have precisely zero experience with digital games, and effectively the same with fantasy role-playing games regardless of format. That said, I do have some knowledge of their potential as more than personal time-sink/entertainment. Now comes my blog-friend Stephen Gordon with his own creation to challenge gamers everywhere.
Did I mention it's a free download?
Granted my lack of expertise with the subject, what I find most intriguing about Stephen's game is that it seems to encourage and reward creative adherence to historical accuracy amongst the players without requiring them to master a complex set of rules and guidelines prior to commencing play. One of the things I'm hoping those more experienced of the genre can ascertain is how much this is actually the case and how such a process might be reinforced without damaging the game-playing experience itself.
It has long been my personal belief that games of this nature could serve as instructional vehicles into the workings of language, mathematics and the sciences generally if having to master those (and other) subjects could be plausibly incorporated into an otherwise challenging game format. Think Halo, but the player has to accurately figure ballistic performance and blast coefficients in a given situation in order to advance into the highest (and most rewarding) stages of play. The same sort of structure could equally apply to multiple language fluency or application of the tenants of the physical sciences as well, I think (if you're old enough, a game in which every player has to demonstrate the talents of MacGuyver in order to best succeed). I suspect such an endeavor would work best as subsidiary elements within a more complex structure like that of the game Civilisation or the on-line environment The Sims or the like, but I don't think this is an actual requirement or reason not to create such games in the absence of a recognisable structure to place them within.
Again, I congratulate Stephen and look forward to more and better in future.
Friday, September 11, 2009
9/11
I don't ordinarily memorialize the day, there are so many others who do so much better than I am capable of. Some things ought to be sacred and, let's face it, I'm just not. That said, I happened across a quote I do think appropriate to our remembrance of the events of that day:
"I suppose it's probably inaccurate to say that firefighters "kick ass", since the main difference between firefighters and Vikings is that when you see a firefighter coming after you with a giant axe you generally feel relieved rather than terrified ..."
The actual article* the quote is from isn't 9/11 specific, but the sentiment seems fitting nonetheless.
* Should profanity offend you, don't click on the link provided; the url is arguably the least profane sentence on the whole page. Strongly recommended reading every Friday at the least.
"I suppose it's probably inaccurate to say that firefighters "kick ass", since the main difference between firefighters and Vikings is that when you see a firefighter coming after you with a giant axe you generally feel relieved rather than terrified ..."
The actual article* the quote is from isn't 9/11 specific, but the sentiment seems fitting nonetheless.
* Should profanity offend you, don't click on the link provided; the url is arguably the least profane sentence on the whole page. Strongly recommended reading every Friday at the least.
Monday, September 7, 2009
More Kevin; Framing The Question, with Addendum
Yesterday I linked to this Kevin Baker post and enjoyed the referred to movie again last night.
Today I wish to take a pass at what I perceive to be Kevin's underlying issue.
There is a technique that most people associate with formal verbal debate commonly known as "re-framing the question". The tactic of altering the context within which your opponent has referenced his most telling points against your position can frequently be achieved by modifying the context within which they are refuted. I think Kevin's quandary regarding "rights" is largely the result of the effect of this linguistic ploy arising from the accumulation of historical debate of the issue.
To exist at all, a frame must first be constructed; herewith, my attempt at such.
The bing fa, from the document which was introduced to the non-chinese speaking world as The Art of War, is a self-referential system having applicability to virtually any form of human political or social structure, but which relies upon it's own internal ethos to achieve consistency and avoid contradiction. It can be applied successfully by virtually anyone in almost any circumstance within which a human being can survive and function with some degree of individuality and independence. I am not prepared to argue that it can be successfully applied entirely independent of any other form of human social construct, but I do assert that the inherent ethos I mentioned earlier resolves the logical inconsistency that so troubles Kevin:
"The core of the discussion to date has involved three primary questions:
A) Are there "absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights" that exist regardless of whether a society recognizes (much less protects) them;
B) do those rights belong to all people, everywhere, at all times, simply because they are human - and;
C) are those rights "self-evident?"
My answer is: A) Yes; B) No; and C) Self evident to whom?
Yes, I realize that position A) contradicts my initial "what a society believes it is" statement, but bear with me. I believe in Rand's "one fundamental right," and have so stated in earlier posts. The source of that right I have stated before:
Reason.
Or Nature. Yaweh. Christ. Vishnu, Mother Gaia, Barney the Dinosaur. I don't know, nor do I care overly much, but reason works for me.
I believe that right is "real" because I believe that - given the chance - average specimens of humanity will conclude through reason that they are of value (to themselves if no one else), and that their physical selves and the product of their labor belongs to them and not another.
It's in what comes after that "one fundamental right" that we begin to run into problems. Let's proceed backwards. Are the "Rights of Man" self-evident? Then:
1. List them. All.
2. Illustrate which are axioms and which are corollaries of those axioms.
3. Explain why every society in history has violated all or at least the overwhelming majority of these rights, if they're absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate, and self-evident.
4. Explain what a society that honored and protected these rights would look like. And, finally,
5. Explain why such a society does not now exist and never has."
My contribution to the discussion has to do with the source issue, the question regarding from whence "rights" emanate, as I believe most of the succeeding quandaries are so because of the traditional assertion(s).
The Bing Fa assumes that the act of individual birth presents each and every human with an inheritance of opportunity; Stephen Hawking, myself and Kevin are each, equally and independently, the inheritors of exactly the same opportunity simply as a result of our successful live birth. No deity figure required (though such is certainly not necessarily excluded either; intervention by a Deity is simply not required for whatever follows the unique act of cellular procreation our parents contrived between themselves). Thus it can be safely asserted that all humans are born equally opportune, I think. What we subsequently make of all that is a separate matter, and therein lies the "right" of it, I suggest.
Our individual opportunity from birth doesn't guarantee anything, of course; catastrophic natural event, violent invaders or simple poor hygiene can abruptly curtail our individual development of opportunity, as can the social context (there's that Ayn Rand influence again :)) within which we seek to do so. It is far more likely that it is this last that will influence us than anything else other than a predatory family member. That last being notoriously hard to control for by any measure not involving the most direct of individual means, let's look at that social context proposition in a bit more detail.
Sun Tzu observed that the best General was the one who achieved the objective by the least damaging means, and worded the concept variously throughout his treatise to emphasize it's importance. Extended to the extreme of a social context, this could be taken to mean that the "best" citizen is that one who achieves both personal and societal success at the least cost or damage to both him/her self and to the society within which s/he happens to live (at the most extreme, the entire planetary or even galactic or universal social context within which both exist). The obverse of that definition being that the "best" free person - the one most fully exercising rights at least damage to all else - might very well prove to be a very bad "citizen" indeed.
In any final analysis of action or deliberation, we are all each our own "General" in that we all possess the ultimate authority to decide every question to the degree to which we are a party. That being true, it follows that we are each fully responsible for all that results from our decision - by way of extreme example, if we agree that the equivalent of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were again to become necessary at some point, then we would be fully responsible for every radiated body that resulted from that decision. Own it. Accept also that a refusal to actively decide an issue is a form of decision itself and doesn't entail any obviation of the subsequent responsibility.
So, in a social context, we are each born into opportunity and we each assert our individual right to develop our opportunity over the course of our lives; in an immortal phrase, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that fulfills our opportunity of birth. From which it can be seen that, indeed, "rights" are self-evident if only because we each assert them for ourselves. It is in the nature of a "social context" that a process be mutually agreed to whereby some constraint upon exercise of our individual rights be accepted by all to achieve said context in the first place. Self-evident is no more a logical inconsistency that is the concept of implicit responsibility when stated within a given context. As I observed in comments in this recent post "Like alliance, definition can be conditional as well." Words do indeed mean things, but that meaning becomes distorted with even a minor change of context. As with words, so too with society and even ethics and morality.
Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest mathematical intellect extant on planet Earth today, was born to the identical opportunity as was I who can only rudimentarily grasp the mysteries of algebra (with Kevin alighting somewhere between, thus completing the triumvirate :)). To what extent, and from among which means, we select to advance our development of our intrinsic opportunity is massively influenced by the social context within which we find ourselves born, but ultimate responsibility for that development rests to a large degree on the means and resoluteness we apply to asserting our right to do so.
Almost without fail, the first word a baby learns of its own volition is "No". It is only through long years of personal education and often painful trial and error attempts that we learn to exercise the same degree of consensual right by saying "Yes". In my experience, mostly we just call this "growing up", but like the child, so too the civilisation. Kevin laments that our founding Constitution is lost to us and likely not retrievable. To which I respond, "Yes", and implore him not to charge resolutely into the ravening mob, but be a better general instead.
When the battle seems lost, re-frame the question.
Addendum: Richard Fernandez offers a classic example of the way in which definitions change as a result of differences in context in his most recent Belmont Club post We The Chosen. Wretchard will be a very successful general come the day ...
Today I wish to take a pass at what I perceive to be Kevin's underlying issue.
There is a technique that most people associate with formal verbal debate commonly known as "re-framing the question". The tactic of altering the context within which your opponent has referenced his most telling points against your position can frequently be achieved by modifying the context within which they are refuted. I think Kevin's quandary regarding "rights" is largely the result of the effect of this linguistic ploy arising from the accumulation of historical debate of the issue.
To exist at all, a frame must first be constructed; herewith, my attempt at such.
The bing fa, from the document which was introduced to the non-chinese speaking world as The Art of War, is a self-referential system having applicability to virtually any form of human political or social structure, but which relies upon it's own internal ethos to achieve consistency and avoid contradiction. It can be applied successfully by virtually anyone in almost any circumstance within which a human being can survive and function with some degree of individuality and independence. I am not prepared to argue that it can be successfully applied entirely independent of any other form of human social construct, but I do assert that the inherent ethos I mentioned earlier resolves the logical inconsistency that so troubles Kevin:
"The core of the discussion to date has involved three primary questions:
A) Are there "absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights" that exist regardless of whether a society recognizes (much less protects) them;
B) do those rights belong to all people, everywhere, at all times, simply because they are human - and;
C) are those rights "self-evident?"
My answer is: A) Yes; B) No; and C) Self evident to whom?
Yes, I realize that position A) contradicts my initial "what a society believes it is" statement, but bear with me. I believe in Rand's "one fundamental right," and have so stated in earlier posts. The source of that right I have stated before:
Reason.
Or Nature. Yaweh. Christ. Vishnu, Mother Gaia, Barney the Dinosaur. I don't know, nor do I care overly much, but reason works for me.
I believe that right is "real" because I believe that - given the chance - average specimens of humanity will conclude through reason that they are of value (to themselves if no one else), and that their physical selves and the product of their labor belongs to them and not another.
It's in what comes after that "one fundamental right" that we begin to run into problems. Let's proceed backwards. Are the "Rights of Man" self-evident? Then:
1. List them. All.
2. Illustrate which are axioms and which are corollaries of those axioms.
3. Explain why every society in history has violated all or at least the overwhelming majority of these rights, if they're absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate, and self-evident.
4. Explain what a society that honored and protected these rights would look like. And, finally,
5. Explain why such a society does not now exist and never has."
My contribution to the discussion has to do with the source issue, the question regarding from whence "rights" emanate, as I believe most of the succeeding quandaries are so because of the traditional assertion(s).
The Bing Fa assumes that the act of individual birth presents each and every human with an inheritance of opportunity; Stephen Hawking, myself and Kevin are each, equally and independently, the inheritors of exactly the same opportunity simply as a result of our successful live birth. No deity figure required (though such is certainly not necessarily excluded either; intervention by a Deity is simply not required for whatever follows the unique act of cellular procreation our parents contrived between themselves). Thus it can be safely asserted that all humans are born equally opportune, I think. What we subsequently make of all that is a separate matter, and therein lies the "right" of it, I suggest.
Our individual opportunity from birth doesn't guarantee anything, of course; catastrophic natural event, violent invaders or simple poor hygiene can abruptly curtail our individual development of opportunity, as can the social context (there's that Ayn Rand influence again :)) within which we seek to do so. It is far more likely that it is this last that will influence us than anything else other than a predatory family member. That last being notoriously hard to control for by any measure not involving the most direct of individual means, let's look at that social context proposition in a bit more detail.
Sun Tzu observed that the best General was the one who achieved the objective by the least damaging means, and worded the concept variously throughout his treatise to emphasize it's importance. Extended to the extreme of a social context, this could be taken to mean that the "best" citizen is that one who achieves both personal and societal success at the least cost or damage to both him/her self and to the society within which s/he happens to live (at the most extreme, the entire planetary or even galactic or universal social context within which both exist). The obverse of that definition being that the "best" free person - the one most fully exercising rights at least damage to all else - might very well prove to be a very bad "citizen" indeed.
In any final analysis of action or deliberation, we are all each our own "General" in that we all possess the ultimate authority to decide every question to the degree to which we are a party. That being true, it follows that we are each fully responsible for all that results from our decision - by way of extreme example, if we agree that the equivalent of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were again to become necessary at some point, then we would be fully responsible for every radiated body that resulted from that decision. Own it. Accept also that a refusal to actively decide an issue is a form of decision itself and doesn't entail any obviation of the subsequent responsibility.
So, in a social context, we are each born into opportunity and we each assert our individual right to develop our opportunity over the course of our lives; in an immortal phrase, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that fulfills our opportunity of birth. From which it can be seen that, indeed, "rights" are self-evident if only because we each assert them for ourselves. It is in the nature of a "social context" that a process be mutually agreed to whereby some constraint upon exercise of our individual rights be accepted by all to achieve said context in the first place. Self-evident is no more a logical inconsistency that is the concept of implicit responsibility when stated within a given context. As I observed in comments in this recent post "Like alliance, definition can be conditional as well." Words do indeed mean things, but that meaning becomes distorted with even a minor change of context. As with words, so too with society and even ethics and morality.
Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest mathematical intellect extant on planet Earth today, was born to the identical opportunity as was I who can only rudimentarily grasp the mysteries of algebra (with Kevin alighting somewhere between, thus completing the triumvirate :)). To what extent, and from among which means, we select to advance our development of our intrinsic opportunity is massively influenced by the social context within which we find ourselves born, but ultimate responsibility for that development rests to a large degree on the means and resoluteness we apply to asserting our right to do so.
Almost without fail, the first word a baby learns of its own volition is "No". It is only through long years of personal education and often painful trial and error attempts that we learn to exercise the same degree of consensual right by saying "Yes". In my experience, mostly we just call this "growing up", but like the child, so too the civilisation. Kevin laments that our founding Constitution is lost to us and likely not retrievable. To which I respond, "Yes", and implore him not to charge resolutely into the ravening mob, but be a better general instead.
When the battle seems lost, re-frame the question.
Addendum: Richard Fernandez offers a classic example of the way in which definitions change as a result of differences in context in his most recent Belmont Club post We The Chosen. Wretchard will be a very successful general come the day ...
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Thanks Kevin
I needed something more this weekend.
I own a DVD of this movie and am inspired to watch it anew; my enjoyment of the holiday is improved.
I own a DVD of this movie and am inspired to watch it anew; my enjoyment of the holiday is improved.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Strategy in Real Life
Earlier today, Instapundit linked to an interesting blog post regarding the nature of boycotts. I often remark on these pages that I study Sun Tzu's treatise on strategy and the Bing Fa; the question(s) raised in the linked-to piece offer an excellent example of the objective I seek from doing so, in particular our blogging colleague's closing statement:
"I just wish someone could give me a simple answer on just how, when and in what way these things are actually supposed to be used."
The basic concept of strategy is that of position, the relative measure of one's own strengths and weaknesses as well as in comparison to other's position. From this evaluation, we can each judge our own capabilities and make informed estimates regarding others. Only following such a determination are we able to make detailed tactical selections (in this example a boycott action). Once a list of potential tactical actions has been compiled, it becomes necessary to consider the ethical/moral qualities each potential tactic entails (which consideration seems to loom large for friend blogger). Finally, once all of the foregoing has been taken into account, one must make the determination as to which possible alliance acceptable to one's individual position will best permit a given tactic's having the desired effect (and it is only at this point in the process that a particular tactic such as a boycott might actually be confirmed as a viable option).
Simple enough, if not at all simplistic. :)
If symbolic appearance is acceptable then, by all means, go for what makes you feel good. If measurable effect is your objective however, as you can see, a good deal more will be required from you. Most tactics only work well when employed as part of a coordinated action leading to a specified objective (which itself is but a way-point along a more extensive journey). That said, it should be considered that a purely symbolic gesture from a sufficient number of positions (ie: people) can serve as justification for subsequent alliance to more substantial purpose. In the end, I think, what it all comes down to is a question of how much of your position (your personal assets, your personal time-line of existence) you are willing to invest to achieve a particular advancement* of your position? There are other important questions, of course, but they tend to all be more or less dependant upon your answer to this particular question (which will itself vary as circumstance does; the bing fa presents it's own ethical standards, but they are not all inclusive nor intended to be).
*Any choice of action always comes at the cost of not doing something else. Much of the time our best strategic choice is to do nothing, or at least nothing overt, so as not to draw active opposition onto our present position (maintenance of which routinely requires effort from us in any case). Implicit to this decision will be the relative importance of this particular tactic compared to the rest of your positional considerations (family, job, religious precepts, friendships and other alliances, etc).
"I just wish someone could give me a simple answer on just how, when and in what way these things are actually supposed to be used."
The basic concept of strategy is that of position, the relative measure of one's own strengths and weaknesses as well as in comparison to other's position. From this evaluation, we can each judge our own capabilities and make informed estimates regarding others. Only following such a determination are we able to make detailed tactical selections (in this example a boycott action). Once a list of potential tactical actions has been compiled, it becomes necessary to consider the ethical/moral qualities each potential tactic entails (which consideration seems to loom large for friend blogger). Finally, once all of the foregoing has been taken into account, one must make the determination as to which possible alliance acceptable to one's individual position will best permit a given tactic's having the desired effect (and it is only at this point in the process that a particular tactic such as a boycott might actually be confirmed as a viable option).
Simple enough, if not at all simplistic. :)
If symbolic appearance is acceptable then, by all means, go for what makes you feel good. If measurable effect is your objective however, as you can see, a good deal more will be required from you. Most tactics only work well when employed as part of a coordinated action leading to a specified objective (which itself is but a way-point along a more extensive journey). That said, it should be considered that a purely symbolic gesture from a sufficient number of positions (ie: people) can serve as justification for subsequent alliance to more substantial purpose. In the end, I think, what it all comes down to is a question of how much of your position (your personal assets, your personal time-line of existence) you are willing to invest to achieve a particular advancement* of your position? There are other important questions, of course, but they tend to all be more or less dependant upon your answer to this particular question (which will itself vary as circumstance does; the bing fa presents it's own ethical standards, but they are not all inclusive nor intended to be).
*Any choice of action always comes at the cost of not doing something else. Much of the time our best strategic choice is to do nothing, or at least nothing overt, so as not to draw active opposition onto our present position (maintenance of which routinely requires effort from us in any case). Implicit to this decision will be the relative importance of this particular tactic compared to the rest of your positional considerations (family, job, religious precepts, friendships and other alliances, etc).
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
There's rules now? with Addenda and Update
Apparently so. Who knew ...
Addenda: I always thought it was more of a guideline.
Update: In possibly related news, some murderous old git has died as a result of too much rich living. Judging by the behavior of those most involved, his estate must have already been satisfactorily carved up in anticipation of the day. Pity that; without some public drama from that quarter we can only expect the return of Michael Jackson to the daily news cycle that much sooner.
Addenda: I always thought it was more of a guideline.
Update: In possibly related news, some murderous old git has died as a result of too much rich living. Judging by the behavior of those most involved, his estate must have already been satisfactorily carved up in anticipation of the day. Pity that; without some public drama from that quarter we can only expect the return of Michael Jackson to the daily news cycle that much sooner.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A minor flux in the Force - Updated below
Anybody got a clue why Eric S. Raymond's blog page keeps coming up 404 these last couple weeks (deliberately not linked, try for yourself; mine and his bookmark could be the problem)? His home page doesn't offer anything obviously explicative. A quick search of his name doesn't link to any recent news reports or blog posts offering enlightenment (the most recent is from the 19th of August this year referencing one of his books). I am aware that there have been threats made on his life in recent months, but anything of that nature ought to have attracted public comment somewhere I would have thought.
In the hope you're still extant Eric, was sup?
UPDATE: For the handfull of people who might not actually want to trawl through the very helpfully provided link in Comments, esr is aware of the phenomenon and efforts are apparently underway to correct it. Other than an apparent technical glitch with his hosting service, all seems to be as well as normal in esr- world. Hopefully my periodic jones for the truely long-form discussion/rant of a given topic will be easily satisfiable again soon.
Huh. My first Insta-link. That wasn't too bad. No server trembles or anything.
In the hope you're still extant Eric, was sup?
UPDATE: For the handfull of people who might not actually want to trawl through the very helpfully provided link in Comments, esr is aware of the phenomenon and efforts are apparently underway to correct it. Other than an apparent technical glitch with his hosting service, all seems to be as well as normal in esr- world. Hopefully my periodic jones for the truely long-form discussion/rant of a given topic will be easily satisfiable again soon.
Huh. My first Insta-link. That wasn't too bad. No server trembles or anything.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Fallacy of "Post-Scarcity"
The boys (and girl) at The Speculist are producing a series of audio interviews over the course of the summer with a variety of guests discussing some aspect of anticipated change in the future. On their Fast Forward Radio program's latest episode, the topic was "The Coming Era of Abundance" which somehow seems to often be portrayed as being a "post-scarcity world". No offense to anyone (particularly Stephen and Phil), but the very notion of scarcity in this context is a strawman argument.
Abundance is a result of human capability, whether individual or societal, whereas scarcity is the result of a corresponding lack of capability or an artificially imposed condition, whether deliberate or unintended consequence. Conflating the two conditions simply works to further confuse an already speculative topic.
Leaving discussion of abundance for the moment, the condition of scarcity isn't quite as obvious a concept as might be supposed. A scarcity of something has to be recognised as being determined within a set of often quite arbitrary conditions, the very arbitrariness of which is often not recognised or taken adequately into consideration when making the valuation of availability. Because a given quantity of some material or capability might exist under particular conditions is not a reasonable measure of availability, nor even of value necessarily.
I contend that scarcity is almost always an imposed condition, the result of either an act of will by some other or a deficit of ability within oneself. Considered in these terms, the possible advent of future technology as commonly discussed on the Speculist blog should more properly (or at least more fully and practically) examine how the particular technology will supersede the pre-existing and societally entrenched mechanism it displaces. Such a disruptive grounding of the discussion is necessary to fully understand the changes such technology implies as well as to prevent the conversation drifting off into utopian fantasies and illogicality's (a sub-set of a different genre). Often overlooked in any examination of a given technology is how it's course of development and acceptance by human society is effected by the actions of the adherents of pre-existing or alternative technologies. Providing a discoursive mechanism whereby people can take such resistance into account is a still-to-be-arrived-at format that continues to hamper such discussions as those hosted on the Speculist blog and Fast Forward Radio program.
One of the most common such fallacies that distort future technology considerations is the general lack of understanding regarding the concept of "money". Money is arguably the most intuitive and nuanced construct humans have (by comparison, the concept of "deity" usually best compares to a super-parent construct suffering from bi-polar disorder to the nth degree). Money is a (so far) universal system of classification and communication that pre-dates all known human records; indeed, the earliest records found in the Mesopotamian and Indus regions are all concerning classification of people and things by various measures and communication regarding their disposition by some figure of assumed authority. More properly still, by some figure speaking as agent for some figure of authority (the vast majority of whom seem to divide their time between enjoying said authority and seeking more, but decidedly not in accounting it all themselves [see: enjoying above]). I submit that the advent of money was the Singularity event that catapulted humanity onto its present course of evolutionary development. Needless to say, any event which doesn't eliminate the human need to classify and communicate won't displace this concept from human society or intellectual pursuits.
Scarcity occurs because some human(s) gain advantage to themselves by imposing such a condition upon others - OR - some human(s) fail to perform the actions necessary to satisfy such a demand and deny the opportunity to themselves and others. These two human traits will continue to exist whatever technology humans might also contrive; failure to account for their influence will only cause disruption and distortion to the development process and further continue the imposition of scarcity as well.
The ability to manipulate the molecular structure of matter to satisfy our particular desire of the moment seems a logical extension of current scientific research and the veritable definition of "abundance". This only holds true, however, to the extent our existing societal structures don't impose inhibiting influence on the development process. Reduction of scarcity equals a commensurate reduction in the degree of influence and outright control that can be imposed upon groups by individuals. Similarly, providing the means to achieve individual abundance offers a single instance of opportunity to the provider. Neither of these near-universal human considerations is obviated by the development of technology or recognition of a human need - however genuine - that development satisfies. Recognition of opportunity and a desire for personal security isn't limited to potential despots after all.
To any possible technologic development, there will be both direct and indirect opposition as well as passive acceptance and outright indifference to contend with. Any examination of future potentialities that fails to adequately take these conditions into account simply fails. Blogs like the Speculist and their Fast Forward Radio production are on-going examinations of human technology development and, as such, remain ever a work in process. I recommend their efforts to everyone and anticipate continued development of the examination process they utilize to contemplate the future.
Abundance is a result of human capability, whether individual or societal, whereas scarcity is the result of a corresponding lack of capability or an artificially imposed condition, whether deliberate or unintended consequence. Conflating the two conditions simply works to further confuse an already speculative topic.
Leaving discussion of abundance for the moment, the condition of scarcity isn't quite as obvious a concept as might be supposed. A scarcity of something has to be recognised as being determined within a set of often quite arbitrary conditions, the very arbitrariness of which is often not recognised or taken adequately into consideration when making the valuation of availability. Because a given quantity of some material or capability might exist under particular conditions is not a reasonable measure of availability, nor even of value necessarily.
I contend that scarcity is almost always an imposed condition, the result of either an act of will by some other or a deficit of ability within oneself. Considered in these terms, the possible advent of future technology as commonly discussed on the Speculist blog should more properly (or at least more fully and practically) examine how the particular technology will supersede the pre-existing and societally entrenched mechanism it displaces. Such a disruptive grounding of the discussion is necessary to fully understand the changes such technology implies as well as to prevent the conversation drifting off into utopian fantasies and illogicality's (a sub-set of a different genre). Often overlooked in any examination of a given technology is how it's course of development and acceptance by human society is effected by the actions of the adherents of pre-existing or alternative technologies. Providing a discoursive mechanism whereby people can take such resistance into account is a still-to-be-arrived-at format that continues to hamper such discussions as those hosted on the Speculist blog and Fast Forward Radio program.
One of the most common such fallacies that distort future technology considerations is the general lack of understanding regarding the concept of "money". Money is arguably the most intuitive and nuanced construct humans have (by comparison, the concept of "deity" usually best compares to a super-parent construct suffering from bi-polar disorder to the nth degree). Money is a (so far) universal system of classification and communication that pre-dates all known human records; indeed, the earliest records found in the Mesopotamian and Indus regions are all concerning classification of people and things by various measures and communication regarding their disposition by some figure of assumed authority. More properly still, by some figure speaking as agent for some figure of authority (the vast majority of whom seem to divide their time between enjoying said authority and seeking more, but decidedly not in accounting it all themselves [see: enjoying above]). I submit that the advent of money was the Singularity event that catapulted humanity onto its present course of evolutionary development. Needless to say, any event which doesn't eliminate the human need to classify and communicate won't displace this concept from human society or intellectual pursuits.
Scarcity occurs because some human(s) gain advantage to themselves by imposing such a condition upon others - OR - some human(s) fail to perform the actions necessary to satisfy such a demand and deny the opportunity to themselves and others. These two human traits will continue to exist whatever technology humans might also contrive; failure to account for their influence will only cause disruption and distortion to the development process and further continue the imposition of scarcity as well.
The ability to manipulate the molecular structure of matter to satisfy our particular desire of the moment seems a logical extension of current scientific research and the veritable definition of "abundance". This only holds true, however, to the extent our existing societal structures don't impose inhibiting influence on the development process. Reduction of scarcity equals a commensurate reduction in the degree of influence and outright control that can be imposed upon groups by individuals. Similarly, providing the means to achieve individual abundance offers a single instance of opportunity to the provider. Neither of these near-universal human considerations is obviated by the development of technology or recognition of a human need - however genuine - that development satisfies. Recognition of opportunity and a desire for personal security isn't limited to potential despots after all.
To any possible technologic development, there will be both direct and indirect opposition as well as passive acceptance and outright indifference to contend with. Any examination of future potentialities that fails to adequately take these conditions into account simply fails. Blogs like the Speculist and their Fast Forward Radio production are on-going examinations of human technology development and, as such, remain ever a work in process. I recommend their efforts to everyone and anticipate continued development of the examination process they utilize to contemplate the future.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Bullish on the Future's Market
The below quotation is an excerpt from the latest e-mail from my daughter:
"... and as of last week....i have taken 8 test and they all say yes.....so i will find out on thursday if they are accurate.....and that you will be a grandfather...."
I don't think I will end up too far from the trunk when I take this pre-confirmation opportunity to publicly declare an upgrade of my personal Grandfather-tude status from "pending" to "incipient".
The Amazon account is in for a shift of emphasis in the near future it would seem. I'll have to see if I can arrange for Saturday delivery.
"... and as of last week....i have taken 8 test and they all say yes.....so i will find out on thursday if they are accurate.....and that you will be a grandfather...."
I don't think I will end up too far from the trunk when I take this pre-confirmation opportunity to publicly declare an upgrade of my personal Grandfather-tude status from "pending" to "incipient".
The Amazon account is in for a shift of emphasis in the near future it would seem. I'll have to see if I can arrange for Saturday delivery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
