X-Message-Number: 28043
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:51:03 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re:
References: <>

> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: Re: economics
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:18:53 +0100


John - interesting comments, thanks for engaging with this. My responses follow.

> Generally I think this idea there is some obviously better way of running
> the world that is being suppressed as flawed as the idea of commercial or
> professional interest suppressing some invention that is not to their
> liking.

Intellectual rights and copyright laws do just that - as one example.

Vested power interests, human psychology, and conservative (note the
small "c") ideologies will ensure suppression of ideas, technologies
and organisations that "do better" (according to -admittably -
contestable criteria) than what-ever is currently popular. Just
consider how Absolute Monarchs in Europe worked so hard to prevent
parliamentary power, or the Catholic Church, when confronted with
challenges to its' worldview (which is just about how everyone else
reacts, only with less hypocrisy). Come on, what do you think Bush's
sex ed. policies are if not a suppression of better reproductive
technology (contraception, abortion, and ultimately stem-cell
research). This is why notions of a "free-market" are bullshit.

> A persistent rumour is of devices, such as the Joe Cell that enable
> cars to run without fuel or by using water as fuel, being suppressed by oil
> companies. The fact remains if it was possible to make cars use water as
> fuel people would do it.

Wrong. Diesel fuel injected cars can run on vegetable oil - and people
buy cooking oil for that reason (which is why sales have gone up -
google it).

The problem is that not enough people know about it. And if you decide
to do it, check your warranty and local laws, because these vested
powers might not like it (possible some issue of untaxed fuel being
used, though this is not illegal in the UK at least).

> An example that proves the point the other way was
> the widespread and almost immediate introduction of helicobacter pylori
> antibiotic treatment for stomach disorders once it was discovered. There was
> no or little backlash from those whose jobs were displaced.

Of course new innovations can be quickly taken up, especially if "the
powers that be" in any given institution can incorporate it and profit
from it. But I refer you to a paper by cryonicist Dr Harris who points
out that something as crucial as anaesthetic can take centuries to be
accepted. See Harris, Steven B. (1992). "The Society for the Recovery
of Persons Apparently Dead" in Skeptic vol. 1, no. 2, Summer 1992, pp.
24-31 (also online). Once again, this flies in the face of your views
on this issue.

Bascially, there is no rationale to whether the best ideas, tech., or
organisations float to the top - what determines this is power
struggle and the vagaries of human psychology.

> Dictatorships and democratic socialism of various sorts have been tried,

Dictatorship is still being tried - like in the US, where Bush has
clearly stated that he considers himself above the law (as Commander
in Chief), hence the wire-tapping and torture.

> using both religion based patriotism and science based humanism as
> associated memes.

Memes? This is a bit a silly concept, basically an over-grown metaphor
used by old Dawkins - who isn't a social scientist.

"Memes" aren't used, rather a whole array of political, social,
economic, technology, and psychology phenomenon go towards creating
particular institutions within any given nation-state. To attribute
the rise and fall of say, communist Russia, to "memes" is as
simplistic as genetic reductivism.

> It has not been as successful as its proponents thought it
> might. No doubt there does exist some better way, it is just that no one
> bright enough has thought of it.

Thinking isn't the problem, history is full of utopian ideas - putting
them into action is the problem.

> If they did, then it would eventually
> supplant the others simply because it is better.

Again, too simplistic. See above.
You seem to be espousing a naive & conservative social-Darwinism where
"things are the way they are" because the best "memes" have triumphed.
But we are not ruled by memes, rather, we are embroiled in historical
struggles which are defined by irrational and unconscious
psychological modes of being.

Me: What kind of commercial capitalism? Within what kind of political
> > system and governed how?
>
> The sort of commerical capitalism that exists at present,

But where!? Commercial capitalism is different in every country. E.g.
Do you mean the UK's capitalism, a country which still (almost) offers
free health care and unemployment benefits, or US capitalism, which
offers its citizens virtually nothing in the way of a welfare state?

> and anyone who
> answers could describe the political system they think would do a better
> job.

Consider a political genius who had no political contacts, no money,
poor health, and - after a period of activism - made some powerful
enemies. Do you think that his "memes" would win out of the current
system because the "meme" was a better (e.g. just, good) organising
principle for human existence?

Even old God's "memes" didn't get past St. Paul's revisionism.

> It will take

> a very long time to get (Mars) terraformed... (but) whether the job is started
now or a few hundred years time is

> going to make no difference at all to ... the majority of the world's 
population and
> virtually all the people alive today who would be paying for this Mars
> project.

This is typical. Our own freedoms and comforts are built on the backs
of slaves, scapegoats, criminals, sacrifices, murders, wars, and
environmental destruction. The lives we enjoy rest on a mountain of
skulls - hell, the human race might not even exist if it hadn't caused
the extinction of competators (e.g. saber-toothed animals).

Some measure of progress can be achieved at great human &
environmental cost (Stalin knew this). Do we still have to do this?
This is essentially the question I put to John K Clark, whose answer
appears to be yes - and perhaps he is even right - there is no-way to
make the world fair, no level-playing field, no measure or guide for
absolute justice, no way to check the natural and normal wish to
expand and grow - which is always at the cost of some other life.
That doesn't mean I like it though, and it doesn't mean we could do better.

> > It would be better to give more money
> > to both kinds of research and treatment, rather than say, blow it all
> > on an ideological war in the Middle East.
>
> The question assumes a limited budget. Whatever the scenario, the budget for
> health care (and anything else, even wars) is not infinite. Therefore the
> question remains.

The question is about how we apportion our resources - to who and to what end?

Obviously cryonics isn't going to be for everyone, even if they wanted
it. Amongst cryonicists there are not enough resources for even just 1
million people. This does not mean we shouldn't support cryonics, but
it does mean that we need to look beyond our hopes for the future to
the actual conditions of life today.

We are not going to have a stable future unless as many people as
possible have the basics - health-care, minimum income, some sense of
security and self-worth. The USA is at war with itself today because
it lacks these things, and the most obvious symptom of this
self-destruction is the massive rich-poor gap (remember, the richest
200 people in the world could educate every kid on Earth with 1% of
their shared annual income! - am I the only person who is totally sick
over this?)

> cryonics is not a "faith" but a "hope". A schoolchild's
> joke definition of faith is "beleiving something to be true that you know
> cannot be true."

Faith is not so simply defined - there is a huge
philosophical/theological literature struggling with this idea.

If you don't like calling belief in cryonics "faith", than call it
"hope", it is still essentially the same psychological trick.

> can anyone think of a better way to fund drug research other than the
> present method or by using committees? Presumably there was drug research in
> the USSR and it worked differently to that in the West. Did it produce
> better results than the West at that time?

Interesting question. I await an educated answer!

> It is probably better for cryonet purposes to look at changes in mortality
> for those that have reached higher ages, such as 40, 50 or even 60.

We know that better treatment for the aged means more life for them -
though the quality can often suffer, as any gerontologist will tell
you. It is good news to have these options, and hopefully progress
will be made in the ultimate preventative medicine - anti-aging. For
now though, i have my hopes on what is immediately available -
cryonics.

> On the basis that people can "vote with their currency", WM wins the
> election.

John, with respect, I think your personal ideology is clouding your
judgment. How can a person "vote with their currency" when there is no
*actual choice*. You don't want to shop at WM? Too bad, it has put
everyone else you could have shopped at out of business. Your choice?
WM - this is especially the case for poor people who cannot afford to
opt-out of WM's cheap goods and convenient locations (every WM in
Calgary that I've seen is on a bus-route).

>In the UK, out of town shopping wins also on the grounds of
> comvenience - you can park outside, and many stores run buses for those
> without cars. People vote with their currency,

Again, you are giving no thought to the most obvious things, like
advertising. Do you think that people make rational choices with their
money? A good deal of research says not, which is why we still have
commercials.

A parallel is our "choice" over political parties - but what choices
is there when most people only ever see and hear the two with the
biggest funding and the strongest power-base?

People don't vote with their currency John, they just spend their
currency where-ever they think best, based on very poor information
and influenced by irrational and unconscious factors.

> yet there is a vociferous
> minority who think it is better to visit congested town centres with
> inadequate and expensive parking, and public transport which by its very
> nature isn't going to suit everyone.

These "vociferous" minorities are rightly concerned with the flow of
capital and community from their home towns, not to mention the
increase in car use (= more exhaust, less exercise). They aren't good
libertarians, but they realise that local businesses are impoverished,
while the rich mall-makers get richer.

Malls are - BTW - exceptionally ugly things compared to some UK town-centres.

(As an aside, i cannot believe the lifeless deadness that the
unnumberable malls and strip-malls in Calgary install. I've not
actually LIVED in a north american city before - I had no idea they
were such eye-sores.)

> Instead of alowing people to vote with
> their currency, these people want to use force to make the public go back to
> town centres. (eg taxing companies out of business who provide car parks for
> their customers)

What evil tyrants!
Actually, these people are engaged in the power struggle that is on
going in any human sphere - their valid interests are up against the
valid interests of some other group.

> > professionals working in offices have a high life expectancy, while
> &gt; asbestos and coal miners do not.
>
> Yet there are howls of anguish when a mine is closed.

Can you guess why? That's right, the lung-blackened miners depend on
it for their livelihood and sense of self-worth.

> in (an) African country ... all the land
> owners were thrown out and a once prosperous country was reduced to getting
> food aid because there was no capable of managing the land who was also
> deemed to be politically correct.

Are you referring to Robert Mugabe's racist attacks of white farmers?
If so, I don't really see a parallel between this and the hypothetical
that you (and John K before you) laid out.

> It would be interesting to read of some alternative system of woning
> businesses and land that would actually work does exist. I suspect that if
> it did, some country would already be using it and a a shining example to
> every other.

Again, you are repeating the same error, presuming that the best ideas
win out because they are - well - the best. Hopefully I've
demonstrated some reasons for you to start questioning this
perspective.

sincerely,
Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28043