Open Source Ecology Forums

elifarley

I saw a link to an interesting article on the OSE-Europe mailing list:

A proposal for governance: Stigmergy, beyond competition and collaboration

Amaterasu

Interesting. The key paragraph seems to be this:

Systems are currently primarily run by competitive organizations. Competition creates redundancy, is slow and wastes resources on idea protection, advertisement, and more. Competition also requires secrecy which blocks progress and causes lost opportunities and ideas. Patents and copyrights further limit speed and the potential for mass input of ideas. Collaboration between the people with the greatest expertise does not happen unless they are hired by the same project.

Indeed, I think if We can extract the tech I am aware of presently hidden in highly classified programs (see http://forum.opensourceecology.org/discussion/594/electrogravitics ) and bring abundant free energy, stigmergy will be the rule.

Thank You for posting this!

Matt_Maier

"The incredible success of so many internet projects are the result of stigmergy, not collaboration, and it is stigmergy that will help us build quickly, efficiently and produce results far better than any of us can foresee at the outset."

Sounds like cherry picking. Way more "internet projects" have failed than have succeeded, let alone succeeded "incredibly." From what I've seen, the projects that succeeded did so precisely because they had a core hierarchical group of people invested in making tangible progress. The internet is just a tool for dissemination and organization. Its power is in that it allows the only two people in the world who care about something to find each other and work together despite being a world apart.

The wikipedia article has a better example of what the term is supposed to mean, "The massive structure of information available in a wiki,^[5] or an open source software project such as the FreeBSD kernel^[5] could be compared to a termite nest; one initial user leaves a seed of an idea (a mudball) which attracts other users who then build upon and modify this initial concept, eventually constructing an elaborate structure of connected thoughts."

That's great...as far as it goes. But wikipedia is currently begging for money. Also, wikipedia quickly realized that allowing ANYONE to make ANY changes they liked did NOT produce the best result. It didn't take Wikipedia long to adopt a hierarchical model. So arguably their success is due to that, not to people behaving like termites.

Amaterasu

The Interweb projects that have failed are the ones which had little value or cost too much. If We can strip the need for money, only truly valuable projects will succeed - and ALL truly valuable projects will succeed, "incredibly," even.

Stigmergy is absolutely the BEST method when profit motive is removed and the Betterment Ethic encouraged.

I hope You (Matt) read My thread on electrogravitics.

Matt_Maier

Well, if we can "strip the need for money" then there won't be any such thing as success or failure.

I'll read more when you demonstrate your functioning prototype.

mjn

> The Interweb projects that have failed are the ones which had little value or cost too much.

That's a pretty simplistic view, @Amaterasu. There are lots of potentially great projects that have failed because the chemistry between the early participants didn't work. There are also plenty of OS projects have have succeeded in spite of costing many millions of dollars to create. I have participated in some.

Stigmurgy works best when the people involved are motivated, patient, cooperative, and well mannered. As the number of people go up, the average quality of the people involved goes down. Even one disruptive person can bring down a team of 10 or 20 good people.

- Mark

Amaterasu

I admit a slight generalization, mjn, but overall, I think My statement was a fair one. Sure, there are exceptions. But most have the issue of not being of much value or lacking funds. And those that are of value to moneyed interests... Yeah. Money will be no object.

Ecophilosopher

My concept for governance:

Small, autonomous, democratically-run communities.

I have personal experience living in such a community that demonstrates that such a community can work.

One of the key issues seems to be population size. If the population gets too big, anonymity becomes possible, which leads to corruption. On the other hand, if population gets too small, then a sufficient division of labor is made impossible. A sufficient division of labor is required in order to have a civilization with "advanced" technology. Actually, any technology above the level of hunting and gathering requires a division of labor. So, one could say that division of labor is necessary to have a civilization, period.

I think an ideal size for an autonomous community would be around 100,000 people. I can't think of any enterprise or undertaking that would be impossible for a group of 100,000. In a community of 100,000, leaders would be easily accessible by those in the community, and leaders would be members of the community. This makes government more accessible and more accountable to the community which is governed, eliminating or at least greatly reducing the possibility of corruption.

Now, as far as how each community is run, I think communities should decide for themselves how they choose to govern themselves, but that the basic principles should be based on democracy and sustainability. Each community should be sovereign in regards to its own affairs, but some kind of federalism is necessary in order to protect the environment and for the common defense. Basically, some ecosystems are too large to be managed by a single small community.

I could say a lot more but I'll stop here for now. Thoughts?

Matt_Maier

Sure. Damned near anything will work if the people involved support it. I don't think there's any such thing as a "best" system of government.

As for the small communities thing, I don't support that idea. Concentrating people in one place creates exponential increases in their collective capabilities. Cities, quite simply, produce more economic value per capita than anything less dense. Bigger cities equal more economic value.

Ecophilosopher

Matt, cities and urban planning happen to be one area that I'm pretty well versed in. I agree that cities are a good thing, but I have a few thoughts regarding the ideal size and population of cities:

The fact is, bigger is not always better. Cities, like anything else in nature, work best within a certain optimal range of sizes. Having a large enough population has benefits and is necessary for an adequate division of labor. However, social problems also multiply as you add more and more people to the same area. Eventually, the increased economic efficiency gained by putting people close together is outweighed by the social problems created by providing infrastructure and services to that population. So, there is an optimum range of sizes. Below the optimum and economic efficiency will not be maximized, above this optimum and the cost of social problems outweighs any gains.

Density is not the same thing as bigness. A community can be quite small in geographic area and still contain a large number of people. Density is what leads to economic efficiency, by putting people closer together they can more easily share resources and talents which allows for greater specialization and greater productivity. You can have an area that is very densely built up without having a huge population. For example, you could have a city of 30,000 people in an area of less than a square mile, which would make it as least as dense as most European cities.

I maintain that I can't think of a single human endeavor that couldn't be completed by a population of 100,000 people. So, if social problems increase with size and a population of 100,000 can accomplish any human endeavor, then human communities should remain at around 100,000 people. I use 100,000 as an approximate figure, obviously.

I realize I've probably left a lot unanswered; I'm happy to answer any objections or questions, though.

Matt_Maier

"Eventually, the increased economic efficiency gained by putting people close together is outweighed by the social problems created by providing infrastructure and services to that population"

Doesn't sound like a size problem. Sounds like an infrastructure problem. Humans, being lazy and short-sighted, have a real problem with infrastructure. We tend to fall into cycles of build-overgrow-collapse rather than doing the sensible thing and scale up our infrastructure. I dunno, maybe it's actually better to do things that way. At any rate it seems to be the best we can manage.

"I maintain that I can't think of a single human endeavor that couldn't be completed by a population of 100,000 people"

Seems both vague and un-referenced. Without more context this idea isn't coherent enough to respond to, let alone debate. 100,000 people with what capabilities? How are they organized? What situation are they in? Did 100,000 come from somewhere or is it just a stand-in in for "a whole lot of people."

Ecophilosopher

Matt; I think the idea is coherent enough for debate. All you need is to provide is a counter-example of a human endeavor that couldn't be undertaken by 100,000 people.

The infrastructure problem is related to the size problem; above a certain size population, as you put more people into the same area, the cost of providing infrastructure increases per-capita.

I use 100,000 because this is roughly the size of both the Italian city-states and the Ancient Greek Polis. Both were centers of science and the humanities; both were the birthplace of cultural revolutions which greatly advanced Western Civilization. As far as how they are organized, I've discussed this in my post on principles for governance elsewhere in this forum.

A lot of my thoughts come from the philosopher Leopold Kohr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kohr

Ecophilosopher

Here is just one reference out of many for the claim that increasing population beyond a certain size leads to increasing social problems:

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/review2.htm

Matt_Maier

Okay, how about "supply 7 billion people with the food they need." Explain how 100,000 people can do that.

Yeah, it's an infrastructure problem, not a size problem. With the right infrastructure any size/density could thrive.

Ecophilosopher

What a ridiculous counter-example! What 100,000 people can do for people outside of their group is irrelevant to the discussion, since what I claimed was that "there is no human endeavor that 100,000 people couldn't complete" which should obviously be taken to mean for themselves, given that the discussion is about the minimum size community that can do everything for themselves.

100,000 people could provide themselves with all the food they need. No size community could provide 7 billion people with the food they need, unless it was around 7 billion people large, obviously!

Think about it, you could use your "argument" in the following way: could 7 billion people feed 100 billion people? Then 7 billion people isn't big enough! Ridiculous.

So I will rephrase the question for you: "Can you think of a single project that a community of 100,000 people couldn't complete, with "project" understood to be something for the community which completes it." I realize I am going to have to be nearly air-tight with my definitions since you seem to want to play the contrarian.

Iinfrastructure costs money. The more people you add to the same area, the greater are the per-capita infrastructure costs, as has been demonstrated in my references. The cost tends to increase at a geometric rate while additional economic efficiency from density tends to only increase at an arithmetic rate. Simply put, increased population density does not pay for itself! Simply repeating yourself doesn't constitute an argument, sorry. The relationship between increased density and increased efficiency is not linear, this is simply an unwarranted assumption on your part.

Ecophilosopher

Matt,
If you can, please provide a reference for the claim that there is a linear relationship between increased population density and increased economic efficiency.

Matt_Maier

I wrote: "
100,000 people with what capabilities? How are they organized? What situation are they in?"

You wrote: " I think the idea is coherent enough for debate"

I wrote: "Okay, how about "supply 7 billion people with the food they need.""

You wrote: "...which should obviously be taken to mean for themselves..."

Don't get snippy at me. I asked you to expand on the idea before I responded to it. You flat out refused to provide context for it, so I just responded to what was there. You don't get to say I asked a ridiculous question when you specify constraints AFTER I asked the question. I already questioned the relevance of the "100,000 people" number. Why not 150,000? Why not 30,000? Are you thinking about a range that averages out to 100,000? Does the number show up anywhere other than ancient city-states? Is it 100,000 illiterate goat herders? 100,000 college graduates? Do they work well together?

It seems like you're taking an incredibly complicated situation and simplifying it down to a single variable. What's the point of discussing that? We already know up-front that the discussion won't be deep enough to matter. If 100,000 is "good enough" then why are there so many examples of cities growing way past 100,000?

How are you even defining the population to be considered? Everyone trades with everyone else; there usually aren't obvious boundaries to who's economic activity contributes to what area. Would the suburbs around a city count as part of the city? Would the little villages around a big village count as part of one distributed population?

Ecophilosopher

Okay, here are the sources from which I derived the 100,000 number:

There is no linear relationship between increasing density and increasing efficiency. It is more like a logistical function, eventually, the gains level out but the costs continue to increase. So there is an optimum size beyond which you get increasing social costs.

It seems to be consistent throughout history, that, communities of around 100,000 are the "sweet spot." Evidence is drawn from research of:
-the Ancient Greek polis (ca. ~500 BCE)
-the Italian city-states of the Renaissance (ca. ~1500 CE)
-the city-states of Germany, before it was Germany (ca. ~1700 CE)
-studies of modern cities using the most sophisticated techniques available. For this I cannot locate the sources I once had, but I quote an acquaintance with several decades' experience as an urban planner:
"[in regards to the relationship between density and efficiency] there is no reason 'benefit' if any, should be linear. The findings dredged from the past are much like you would expect today. Cities of less than 25,000 had a somewhat lower living standard, relatively fewer services and relatively higher taxes. The best city size was approximately 125,000. Very good living standard, services and acceptable taxes. Today, the jackasses promoting 'smart growth' or some knock-off of it imply no limits to the city city size or numbers."

Ecophilosopher

Matt,

I did qualify my figure of 100,000. I quote myself:
"I maintain that I can't think of a single human endeavor that couldn't
be completed by a population of 100,000 people. So, if social problems
increase with size and a population of 100,000 can accomplish any human
endeavor, then human communities should remain at around 100,000 people.
I use 100,000 as an approximate figure, obviously."

Matt_Maier

Still seems like it's a question without an application. Are you suggesting that we plan for 100,000 person villages? That any city over 100,000 people disband? That we divide up the world into groups of 100,000 and draw borders around them?

I'm still not sure what that information is supposed to do for anyone. If a city has 100,001 people and they decide they want to keep expanding are we supposed to tell them it's a bad idea? It seems like by the time a population reaches that size it's well outside the control of rational pre-planning.

Ecophilosopher

Sure it has application. Around 100,000 is the optimal size for a community. This means we plan for cities of 100,000.

I suspect that a large chunk of the population will die off in the coming century due to global climate change and resource depletion, rendering these concerns of "what to do when the community exceeds 100,000" largely irrelevant.

No amount of new technology can make society sustainable so long as population continues to grow. Improved technology can reduce the amount of resources needed per capita, but if population grows, then the total amount of resources needed also grows. There is not an infinite amount of resources available to us and so no amount of technology can make society sustainable so long as population growth remains unchecked.

So, cities should be prevented from growing beyond their optimum size in the first place, through the use of birth control and incentives (tax breaks, perhaps) to have fewer children. Or, starvation and war over the remaining resources will reduce our numbers for us.

Matt_Maier

"No amount of new technology can make society sustainable so long as population continues to grow. Improved technology can reduce the amount of resources needed per capita, but if population grows, then the total amount of resources needed also grows. There is not an infinite amount of resources available to us and so no amount of technology can make society sustainable so long as population growth remains unchecked."

>>>In theory, if we could figure out how to convert matter more-or-less directly into energy, and combine that with a molecular assembler, we could support damned near any size population with the Earth's existing resources.

Philosophically, do you prefer legislating zero population growth, or do you prefer warfare and extinction?

Ecophilosopher

">>>In theory, if we could figure out how to convert matter more-or-less directly into energy, and combine that with a molecular assembler, we could support damned near any size population with the Earth's existing resources."

Of course - if we had Star-Trek replicators then all of our problems would disappear. I don't think we will ever have this technology, and I think betting the future of the human race on it is the height of stupidity. We know we are running out of resources NOW. We DON't KNOW if we will ever have Star-Trek replicators.

This is like a person who smokes a pack of cigarrettes a day but isn't worried about getting cancer because they believe that SURELY by the time they get cancer, a cure will have been found.

I'm not saying that we WON'T ever have Star-Trek replicators, just that it seems incredibly risky and stupid to bet the survival of the human race on it.

I'm not saying that we WON'T ever have a cure for cancer, just that it seems incredibly risky and stupid for a person to smoke a pack a day under the assumption that a cure will be found by the time THEY get cancer.

"Philosophically, do you prefer legislating zero population growth, or do you prefer warfare and extinction?"

Either option leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but this is a case of having to choose between the lesser of two evils (kinda like a presidential election). I think it is pretty clear that legislating birth control would result in far less suffering than warfare and starvation on a massive scale.

Ecophilosopher

whoops, misread your last sentence to say "warfare and starvation" instead of "warfare and extinction." If the choice is between extinction and legislating birth control, then it is even clearer that legislating birth control results in less suffering.

Matt_Maier

The last time I checked, modern western societies actually had negative birth rates. The only reason the most advanced countries have growing populations is they have a lot of immigrants. So, if you want to legislate zero population growth, you're going to have to apply it to all the non-advanced countries. I have a hard time seeing how that wouldn't immediately turn into a war. On the other hand, if we bring those populations up to our level of technology and education, their birth rates will also drop to, or below, zero.

Funny thing about people is that they don't necessarily like putting up with kids. When they have social security, and don't work on a farm, and don't have one of a few particular religions, they also don't have a lot of kids. A big part of this is the cultural equality that comes from modern systems. Women who have a choice about pumping out a lot of kids generally choose not to.

How do you picture it working? I don't see either idea doing anything productive.

Ecophilosopher

Matt,

You reference the "demographic shift." This can occur given the following:

-Increasing access to education, particular women's education
-increasing access to birth control
-raising living standards

Birth rates are probably still too high to achieve the required population reduction in time. Climate change will mean even less habitable land, which means a further reduction in population. A famine or two might be sufficient motivation for people to voluntarily adopt a "one child per family" policy.

Matt_Maier

Hmmm...nope. I doubt it.

I can't think of anyone who's ever voluntarily adopted a one-child policy. Even the Chinese have to legislate it, and people constantly break the rule. Even when they're sort of obeying the rule it leads to the systematic murder of female babies. The last time I checked, China has a real issue with that. The upcoming generation has 115 men for every 100 women. That means China has millions of guys who, literally, will never have a girlfriend. Ever. That can't be good. You know what people have traditionally done with an excess of 18-28 year old men? Yeah, we're back to the war thing.

Your ideas really aren't sounding all that helpful.

If our current path might lead to suffering and death, why not take the chance? Your "fix actions" seem to replace the chance for suffering and death with the absolute certainty of suffering and death. What's worse, it will be some specific person's fault, rather than the blame being shared all around. Which is worse, to try to make it and fail? Or to tear each other apart trying to avoid failure?

Ecophilosopher

"I can't think of anyone who's ever voluntarily adopted a one-child policy. Even the Chinese have to legislate it,"

By "voluntary" I meant legislated. Since, you know, people would have to vote for it. In a democracy, anyway.

"Your ideas really aren't sounding all that helpful."

My ideas do not sound helpful to those who want to maintain the status quo at all costs.

"Your "fix actions" seem to replace the chance for suffering and death with the absolute certainty of suffering and death."

Only to someone who has greatly misinterpreted what I've said.

You seem to not understand the difference between sustainable and unsustainable resource use. Depleting resources faster than they are replenished is unsustainable and has caused many civilizations to collapse throughout history. When a civilization collapses, all the people who depend on the infrastructure of that civilization die. I want to avoid that, while you just want to blindly continue on the same path, with the naive hope that someone will invent something in time. Just like the smoker who believes that a cure for cancer will be found in time.

"What's worse, it will be some specific person's fault, rather than the blame being shared all around. "

Why would it be some specific person's fault? You seem to have an authoritarian view of reality, as if people are unable to form voluntary agreements with each other.

Which is worse, to try to make it and fail? Or to tear each other apart trying to avoid failure?

Another false dichotomy; I guess your military background has left you with the tendency to view
things in black-and-white terms. Reality is more complex than that. Unsustainable resource use guarantees the eventual failure of a civilization.

Matt_Maier

"By "voluntary" I meant legislated. Since, you know, people would have to vote for it. In a democracy, anyway."

>That's interesting. The wealthiest countries aren't the ones contributing to overpopulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg So, most of the countries that should do this, because they have so many kids, are not democracies. How do you suggest we "legislate" a one-child policy on them?

"You seem to not understand the difference between sustainable and unsustainable resource use."

>Yeah...that seems like an obvious conclusion...give how complicated the idea is...

"When a civilization collapses, all the people who depend on the infrastructure of that civilization die."

>Not everyone. In fact, not even most. It's usually more of an organizational collapse than a population collapse.

"you just want to blindly continue on the same path, with the naive hope that someone will invent something in time."

>We've already invented it. It's called "the middle class." Wealth and education strongly correlates to low birth rates. Sometimes so low they drop below the replacement rate. For example, US natives have an exceptionally low birth rate, but first-generation immigrants don't. Second generation immigrants, on the other hand, tend to lose a full point. From 3 down to 2 in one generation because they are wealthier and better educated than their parents when they arrived. Now, I think this highlights the fact that you've been mixing "resource use" and "population" into the same conversations. They aren't the same thing. A one-child per family policy does nothing to address increasing resource use. The most densely populated places on the planet don't use a tenth the resources America uses. Do you want to address those two ideas separately?

"Why would it be some specific person's fault?"

>Because someone has to say, "Hey, Nigeria, you're having too many kids. Cut that out or we'll roll the tanks in." As opposed to the whole planet just continuing to do what it does, eventually running into a problem, and everything going to shit. Then it's everyone's fault.

"You seem to have an authoritarian view of reality, as if people are unable to form voluntary agreements with each other."

>Well, it does happen...but it's pretty unusual. Sure people are ABLE, but they are rarely willing.

"Unsustainable resource use guarantees the eventual failure of a civilization."

>No, the existence of a civilization guarantees the eventual failure of a civilization. All organizations disappear sooner or later. But we're not worried about any particular civilization. We're worried about the human population as a whole. Is that what you meant, or did you really mean "civilization?"

Ecophilosopher

The wealthiest countries aren't the ones contributing to overpopulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg So, most of the countries that should do this, because they have so many kids, are not democracies. How do you suggest we "legislate" a one-child policy on them?

I'm well aware of that, but as I said earlier, the birth rates of western countries are probably still to high to achieve the required population reduction in the required amount of time. We are rapidly depleting our resources. At current rates of extraction, we will exhaust every non-renewable resource within 50 years. Again, this is at *current* rates of extraction, ignoring the explosive growth taking place in China and elsewhere...

I suggest that legislating a one-child policy should be a last resort. Raising standards of living, improving education and access to birth control should come first. If this isn't enough, then each country will have to legislate for itself a one-child policy on itself. I don't suggest legislating things for them, because I'm not an authoritarian. If they do not legislate a one-child policy, then starvation and war will result in the required population reduction anyway.

">Not everyone. In fact, not even most. It's usually more of an organizational collapse than a population collapse."

It depends on how hard and fast the collapse is. Our collapse is likely to be much greater in scale than any prior collapse due to the amount of growth which has occurred as the result of exploiting fossil fuels. In the early days of agriculture there were several collapses which resulted in spectacular declines in population. The severity of collapse depends on how much growth has been built up around unsustainable practices. We aren't just talking about the collapse of a particular civilization, we're talking about die-off.

"'s called "the middle class." Wealth and education strongly correlates to low birth rates."

I've already acknowledged the demographic shift but this is not what I was referring to. The "middle class" is also a profligate user of resources. To support the average "middle class" lifestyle for every person on earth, we would need 5 earths. So the problem is not just one of population growth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_PAT)

"I think this highlights the fact that you've been mixing "resource use" and "population" into the same conversations"

Maybe you have - I thought the distinction was pretty clear.

"The most densely populated places on the planet don't use a tenth the resources America uses"

Not true. This is the same as your claim that there is a linear relationship between density and benefit, which I've already addressed previously. It is more like a logistic function. The benefits eventually level off, but costs still increase as you add more people. The biggest gains from increasing density are seen only at very low densities.

The reason the most densely populated places on the planet use fewer resources is because they are very poor. Raise them all to the American standard of living and their resource use would be comparable to ours.

"someone has to say, "Hey, Nigeria, you're having too many kids. Cut that out or we'll roll the tanks in." As"

You continually interpret things in an authoritarian way. Why would someone else have to tell Nigeria what to do? Couldn't they figure it out for themselves? This is both extremely condescending and authoritarian.

"but it's pretty unusual. Sure people are ABLE, but they are rarely willing."

It's not that unusual for a small group of people where everyone knows each other. The problem you refer to, like most social problems, has to do with group size.

">No, the existence of a civilization guarantees the eventual failure of a civilization. All organizations disappear sooner or later. But we're not worried about any particular civilization. We're worried about the human population as a whole. Is that what you meant, or did you really mean "civilization?"

Let's look at both interpretations. If we take "civilization" to mean a particular civilization, then I do not think it is true that "civilization guarantees the eventual failure of civilization." It depends on what principles the civilization is based on. So, unsustainable resource use leads to the failure of civilization using this sense of the word. But it is not necessarily the case that civilization must use resources unsustainably.

If we take "civilization" to mean the human population in general, the same thing still applies, if the human population in general is using resources unsustainably. Unsustainable resource use leads to eventual die-off, where 90-99% of the members of a species die through starvation or competition over the remaining resources.

Of course, those "primitive" societies which you denigrate would be almost unaffected by the die-off.

Matt_Maier

"If they do not legislate a one-child policy, then starvation and war will result in the required population reduction anyway."

>So...you DO recommend rolling the tanks in to force them to reduce their population? You just want someone else to give the order, right?

"Why would someone else have to tell Nigeria what to do? Couldn't they figure it out for themselves?"

>Haha, are you serious? I think you actually are serious, but that just makes it funnier. If you're going to come down on me for being stupid enough to rely on a magical new technology to cure our problems then I get to come down on you for being stupid enough to rely on a magical new philosophy to cure our problems. You're hardly the first person in history to say, "Man why can't we all just get along?" and you won't be the last. At least my stupid idea relies on a steadily increasing level of technology. Yours relies on the idea that humans will finally stop acting the same way they've always acted.

"I do not think it is true that "civilization guarantees the eventual failure of civilization.""

>Can you give me an example of a civilization that has never disappeared?

Ecophilosopher

>So...you DO recommend rolling the tanks in to force them to reduce their population? You just want someone else to give the order, right?

No, I am not recommending this. I am simply saying that war and starvation is inevitable when there is no longer enough food and other resources to go around. I am also saying this is highly undesirable, so that birth control is the preferable option.

"You're hardly the first person in history to say, "Man why can't we all just get along?"

This is an unbelievable straw man. Yet again you demonstrate your lack of charity.

I am simply not saying what you think I am saying.

You would like my position to be reducible to some easily refuted fallacy, demonstrating that you think I'm an idiot although you A) don't know me and B) don't even understand what I'm saying.

I never suggested "man, why can't we all just get along." This isn't even an argument, this is just you being uncharitable and lazy and trying to portray me as some idiotic stoner.

People (or communities) can make decisions for themselves, or someone else can make the decisions for them. That is not the same thing as "everyone getting along." Suggesting that communities can make decisions for themselves is not the same thing as suggesting that "everyone just get along."

I suggested that communities can make decisions for themselves.

"Yours relies on the idea that humans will finally stop acting the same way they've always acted."

No, my idea does not rely on any change in human nature whatsoever. It only appears this way to someone whose idea of human nature is derived solely from Western expansionist cultures which have existed for less than a few hundred years.

>Can you give me an example of a civilization that has never disappeared?

It doesn't matter if I can or not. Even if you demonstrate that all civilizations eventually collapse, this does not entail that "civilization guarantees the eventual failure of civilization." Even if all civilizations eventually collapse, this doesn't warrant the inference that the cause of civilization collapsing is internal to civilization itself. A civilization can collapse due to external forces such as unpredictable climate change, for example.

You wanted to imply that the cause of civilization collapsing is always due to civilization itself (I don't see how else your statement could be interpreted). This simply does not follow from the observation that all civilizations eventually collapse.

Matt_Maier

I volunteered to end the conversation. You chose to continue interacting with a person who obviously thinks differently. Stop whining.

"I am also saying [war/starvation] is highly undesirable, so that birth control is the preferable option."

>Which is great. Thanks for saving the day Captain Obvious. You haven't yet explained how you are going to get the population of Nigeria to voluntarily adopt a one-child policy. I can't think of a way. I've never heard of anyone else thinking of a way. So, YOU need to explain how that's going to happen. Only then can your "solution" be considered anything greater than wishful thinking.

"Suggesting that communities can make decisions for themselves is not the same thing as suggesting that "everyone just get along." I suggested that communities can make decisions for themselves."

>But your "solution" hinges on convincing those communities to make the decision you know they SHOULD make. Because you're rational and they aren't. How are you going to do that? How are you going to break people up into small enough groups that they start to act rationally? Or whatever your idea is...I wouldn't want to strawman you.

"No, my idea does not rely on any change in human nature whatsoever. It only appears this way to someone whose idea of human nature is derived solely from Western expansionist cultures which have existed for less than a few hundred years."

>What was that you were saying about charity? Anywho, that would have been a great place to rebutt my understanding of how human nature helps your idea work. you know, since I have "no idea" what you're actually saying.

"You wanted to imply that the cause of civilization collapsing is always due to civilization itself (I don't see how else your statement could be interpreted). This simply does not follow from the observation that all civilizations eventually collapse. "

>No I didn't. I merely observed that all civilizations collapse. That is all. Full stop. No implication as to a common cause.

Ecophilosopher

So now I'm whining by pointing out that this entire time you've only wanted to "debate?" I think there is a pretty obvious difference between A) two people trying to communicate and B) two people trying to debate. You are only interested in the latter.

"So, YOU need to explain how that's going to happen. Only then can your "solution" be considered anything greater than wishful thinking."

A necessary condition for survival is still a necessary condition for survival regardless of if a person or group of people wants to recognize that it is necessary.

I already have explained it... twice now, actually.

-raising living standards
-improving access to birth control
-improving education
-and, maybe most importantly, democratic governance (since the question is how you get a population to voluntarily adopt something...)

"But your "solution" hinges on convincing those communities to make the decision you know they SHOULD make. Because you're rational and they aren't."

I never claimed that they weren't rational...

My solution doesn't hinge on convincing anyone of anything.

Some people will make the response that is necessary for survival. Some won't and they will perish. I'm merely pointing out necessary conditions for survival (e.g., only consuming as many resources as is possible without depleting resources completely). People can either be rational and recognize that these conditions are necessary, or they can ignore them and perish.

"How are you going to break people up into small enough groups that they start to act rationally? Or whatever your idea is...I wouldn't want to strawman you."

No one has to force large groups of people to break up if they are unsustainable. If large groups of people are unsustainable then they will eventually break up of their own accord. This happens throughout history as I've already discussed. Western civilization seems to follow a cyclical pattern beginning with small groups and progressing toward empire. Eventually the empire collapses and society is reset back to the small group stage. This has happened many times throughout the history of the West. We just happen to be at the end of another "empire" stage.

There are already many people working on forming their own small groups. Open Source Ecology is one example. There are many examples of intentional communities throughout the world.

">What was that you were saying about charity? Anywho, that would have been a great place to rebutt my understanding of how human nature helps your idea work."

Having already explained this several times, I see no need to go over it again. You take an overly reductive view of human nature, seeing humans as fundamentally individual beings engaged in competition with each other. Probably has something to do with your military background. I won't hold it against you. The scientific view is different. It sees humans as fundamentally social creatures which cooperate with each other in order to survive. Within this general framework of cooperation, some limited competition takes place (that is, assuming there are plenty of resources to go around).

"No I didn't. I merely observed that all civilizations collapse. That is all. Full stop. No implication as to a common cause."

Now you're either being dishonest or you've simply forgotten what it is you said.

You said "civilization guarantees the eventual failure of civilization." That's a direct quote.

Matt_Maier

"Now you're either being dishonest or you've simply forgotten what it is you said. You said "civilization guarantees the eventual failure of civilization." That's a direct quote. "

>Yeah. That's a tautology. If "all civilizations collapse" then the existence of a civilization guarantees a collapse. It's a simple logical restatement; I merely reversed the parts.

"I never claimed that they weren't rational... "

>Then I must really not be following anything you've said. I thought your thesis was that irrational decisions, caused by large groups, were leading us straight towards resource scarcity and collapse. Where did I go wrong?

"My solution doesn't hinge on convincing anyone of anything."

>Really? Cuz just a few sentences later you said, "People can either be rational and recognize that these conditions are necessary, or they can ignore them and perish." I was under the impression that you were proposing a "solution" to our resource scarcity problem, which was convincing all the irrational people to be rational and voluntarily limit their population and resource use. What about that is incorrect?

Ecophilosopher

">Yeah. That's a tautology. If "all civilizations collapse" then
the existence of a civilization guarantees a collapse. It's a simple
logical restatement; I merely reversed the parts."

Okay, but you could have just said "all civilizations collapse" and avoid this confusion. But, I also addressed this claim. Even if all civilizations in the past have collapsed this does not provide support for the deduction "therefore, all civilizations collapse." From the fact that "all civilization in the past have collapsed" the most you can do is infer that all civilizations collapse, using induction. An inductive inference provides no guarantee. So, I still say that is is not necessarily true that all civilizations collapse.

">Then I must really not be following anything you've said. I
thought your thesis was that irrational decisions, caused by large
groups, were leading us straight towards resource scarcity and collapse.
Where did I go wrong?"

A human being is still "rational" in one sense even if they are acting irrational at the moment, because "rationality" is part of the essence of a human being. A human is a thing with rationality. Or, to be more precise, a human being is a thing with the capacity for rationality. So when I said that "people are rational" I meant that people have the capacity for rationality, not that they use this capacity at all times or that their behavior can always be described as rational.

I do think that group size is a determining factor influencing people's ability to use their capacity for rationality. Commentators throughout history have noticed that as a group becomes larger, rationality and democracy suffer.

"I was under the impression that you were proposing a "solution" to our
resource scarcity problem, which was convincing all the irrational
people to be rational and voluntarily limit their population and
resource use. What about that is incorrect?"

I'm not even proposing a solution, really. Just pointing out necessary conditions for sustainability. I think that our empire will collapse and society will be reset back to small groups, just as has occurred several times throughout the history of Western Civilization. I don't see any way of avoiding this at this point - maybe if we had taken the advice of scientists in the 60's and 70's who warned us of limits to growth, we could have avoided collapse, but I think it's too late now. Maybe, after such a catastrophic collapse, people will learn the reasons for collapse and will avoid repeating the same mistakes. I don't expect that all or even most groups will do this, but those that survive over the long-term will have to. I'm not proposing any specific solution. I'm pointing out reasons for collapse and necessary conditions of sustainability. From there, people may or may not come up with their own solutions. The more we continue on our current path, the worse the eventual collapse will be. We can take steps now to engineer a "soft landing."

Matt_Maier

Hmmm...so, all you were saying was that people can be rational and sustainability is good? That's it? You really didn't have a point beyond those? You weren't suggesting any kind of insightful analysis or practical solution? If that's all you were trying to say then I'm not surprised you got irritable. There's nothing to argue about there; barely anything to discuss. Sorry I dragged things out.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Tagged

Open Source Ecology Forums