1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




New government, new opportunities, same people cause wars

Home Forums Research Law and Politics New government, new opportunities, same people cause wars

This topic contains 14 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Pastor_Jason Pastor_Jason 5 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #488
    Avatar of morningtime
    morningtime
    Participant

    This topic is about human nature. No matter what people think of, there is few drawbacks that will need to be overcome. Here’s a short list of human shortcomings, I decided to publish here, because if you’re going to try something new like this, why not take improving ourselves into account:

    • People make bad decisions. Did you know: if you were served food on a bigger plate, you would eat more? And if you had to choose from too many options, you would go for the default option? Even if it was the worst option? Problem: Our brains are wired for inactivity, e.g. stay with the default options. A book was published about this, I forgot the title. (Im posting this here when I remember).
    • People are born into top-down hierarchies. I have heard some people argument any hierarchy is unnatural to human beings. Don’t be fooled: you were born into one: the natural family hierarchy (you-father-grandfather, the grandma, the mother, the daughter). Problem: we are wired for seeking and accepting hierarchy.
    • People need linear cause-and-effect explanations. If something happens, something must have caused it. That’s the reason so many people believe in god(s) or accept any other belief system. This desire for linear causality is also based on how we are born: as living organisms we see baby’s born, grow up, give birth themselves and die. As we try to explain our environment, we use that as our reference point. Problem: the innate desire for linear causality makes us believe in the wrong explanations for larger than life phenomena.
    • People are born into families and extended groups. This is why we need to ‘feel part of something’. Like a school, religion, ethnic group. Something needs to give us an identity, we can’t just be ourselves. All sorts of nationalism, racism, religious zelotism, are all caused by this need to be part of something.
    • People are driven by fear and laziness.
    • People need to feel special.
    • Etc.
    • Etc.

    The list could go on and on. But there is a point I’m tryin to make here: Whatever kind of government system we think of, it must accept human shortcomings and work with them.

    I believe modern democracy is in a state of constant denial, believe people are perfect beings able to make the right decisions, motivated by honour and equality. But that is all bullshit, and why all government fails.

    #2102
    Avatar of Jesrad
    Jesrad
    Participant

    “Our brains are wired for inactivity”

    And that’s a good thing, because it avoids, in most situations, our feeling miserable. Imagine how sad the life of a slug with the consciousness of a human would be.

    “We are wired for seeking and accepting hierarchy.”

    … until we emancipate. The truely natural course is to be a subordinate of our parents throughout childhood, then reach adulthood and take the place or role that suits us better, or get away and thrive on our own, or whatever does not simpl fit into the existing hierarchy. A persistent hierarchal system implies that its peopel remain in their current age-set permanently, that’s why states evolve into nannystates over time, and indirectly cause their citizens to stay childish for longer and longer, while teenagers become more and more twisted and depressed.

    In any case, as a revolutionary anarchist I have no problem with hierarchies, as long as they’re justified by unanimous consent.

    “The innate desire for linear causality makes us believe in the wrong explanations for larger than life phenomena.”

    Yup, and that’s what Discordianism aims to fix.

    #2109
    Avatar of thebastidge
    thebastidge
    Participant

    Every Utopian idea tried so far has failed because it aimed at some point to change the basic nature of humans. Human nature changes slowly and incrementally. Realistically, all one should expect from a seastead is something a bit better, both for one personally and to provide an example.

    #5923
    Avatar of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    here has been some really great stuff posted her months and months ago, but for whatever reason has fallen through the cracks. This is an example of such: can we hope to change the world with the same humans that have lived on it for millenia? Excellent stuff.

    What are some of your thoughts here?

    __________________________________________________
    There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.

    #5928
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Thorizan wrote:

    here has been some really great stuff posted her months and months ago, but for whatever reason has fallen through the cracks. This is an example of such: can we hope to change the world with the same humans that have lived on it for millenia? Excellent stuff.

    What are some of your thoughts here?

    To a certain extent, seasteading offers you a selection among initial conditions: if you want a libertarian society, start out with libertarians.

    While there is some merit to this, in the end, all people are people. Put the most strict libertarians under a set of winner-takes-all rules, and it wont be long before the winner has rationalized why everyone ought to do in their bedroom as he says.

    Perhaps the first generation will stay true to their ideals, but what of their children? Or their grandchildren?

    It is certainly easier to start out with the ‘right’ people, whatever that may mean for you, but i wouldnt depend on my choice of initial conditions for the end result.

    Clever engineering of incentive structures is where it is at. The freedom to leave, or dynamic geography is a big part of that: How to set up institutions to maximalize this effect are in my opinion the interesting open questions.

    #5930
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    The world has been changed many times in the past. Usually with the invention of new technology or the introduction of new ideas. Seasteading is such an effort.

    While seasteading probably will not stop individual societies (and seasteads) from going corrupt over time (even businesses, that should have enormous existential pressure to keep innovating and staying up to date, declines eventually), it bypasses this problem by enabling people to create new societies from scratch.

    #5938
    Avatar of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    People go bad because they perceive more incentive to do so than staying straight. Perhaps dynamic geography will make it more difficult to perceive those same incentives that have plagued mankind for millenia.

    __________________________________________________
    There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.

    #5939
    Avatar of Hephaeston
    Hephaeston
    Participant

    I typically have had a very positive view of my mother throughout my life, as kind, caring etc. There is one issue that I find irreconcilable with my general view of her. A couple years ago I found out my sister is voting. The issue is she is functionally retarded, completely incapable of any analytical thought … Emotionally she reached approximately 4-5 yo. at about 18 and has stayed there ever since, impulse control, delayed gratification … none of the above. She can do simple arithmetic but it doesn’t mean anything, and she can read and write but even the most rudimentary of comprehension questions are completely incomprehensible to her. She has never been declared incompetent, a ward of the state, a permanent ward of my parents, etc, b/c my parents do not want to limit their options legally with her eventual placement. So she can vote. My mother takes her when she goes to vote. Basically my mother gets two votes, perfectly legally. She’s not going in the booth with her (and heh, frankly who knows who she’s actually voting for in there … ).

    IMO my mother is corrupt, in that.

    Corruption is a funny thing. In small insular societies it just about doesn’t exist. Everybody knows everybody and everybody’s relationships and standing with everybody else. There’s no cronyism because everyone knows the entire pool of available applicants and there’s little to no reason to pick someone less qualified when there are more or less equal consequences to pay by not selecting anyone.

    In larger societies we often make choices that give preference to people we know over people we don’t. When this is done in certain ways it is acceptable. When it is done in others, in the first world at least, generally it is not.

    It works for bribes, too. With 50 people if you have been delegated responsibility for, and the benefits of, a resource, of course you’re going to want some sort of compensation from your fellows for access to it. If you’ve been given responsibilities for the stationary for your company and you charge a buck per company pen … well, you’re corrupt.

    I’m positing that everybody constantly makes decisions in their own understanding of their own self-interest, often emotional decisions with a piece of equipment built to work in situations that no longer exist for most people.

    People basically aren’t very good at dealing with situations that involve a lot people they don’t, and can’t, know. We like to think we’re rational, but it seems that we spend a lot of time making decisions emotionally and then using our intellect to rationalize it after the fact.

    So we come up with systems to manage these complex relationships with millions of people that don’t know each other … and by and large the first world does really, really well. One consequence of this incremental process of societal development is what hackers call cruft. All the stuff that you don’t need for your current implementation except for the fact that it has to be reverse compatible with every little stupid thing every older version ever did.

    So the implication of that is the longer it goes on without a clean slate the worse it will get. Another implication is that unless you keep societal population low you are going to have corruption, always. The third one is revolutions can work really really well by building new, ‘clean’ systems.

    True story up there, btw

    #5942
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    I completely agree with your position: pooling people in large groups against their will has some serious issues.

    I wouldnt hold it against your mother, what she does. As a matter of fact: i just got a letter from the taxman, saying they swallowed all my bullshit hook line and sinker. And im proud of it: ive never asked to be part of their system, and i dont feel any sort of obligation towards them. Not that i have any taxable income, being a student, but there is a lot of ways to mess with them regardless.

    The thing as a whole is a tragedy of the commons. While i would rather see a tragedy of the commons resolved, it is impossible to resolve one by individual action. Im going to assume everyone else games the system to maximum effect, and so will I. Perhaps that will force the state to patch up its holes; fine, i guess you owe me one. Or even better yet, it will come crashing down. Not that I think that is likely to happen, so thank god for seasteading :).

    #5944
    Avatar of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    Dunbar’s Number… any society that gets above that starts to become corrupt… and also starts to lift itself out of poverty.

    So… can we have one without the other? I think THAT is an interesting question to persue.

    __________________________________________________
    There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.

    #5948
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Thorizan wrote:

    Dunbar’s Number… any society that gets above that starts to become corrupt… and also starts to lift itself out of poverty.

    So… can we have one without the other? I think THAT is an interesting question to persue.

    Good question. I think it is important to recognize that people can organize into more complex structures, federations of tribes, and so on.

    It is safe to assume that sooner or later the bureaucrat who runs the daily affairs of any agglomeration of people is going to decide its in the best interest of everyone if he upsurps ultimate power. After all, think of the children!

    There is nothing you can do to stop him from trying, but at least you can make sure to read Spooner to your children at bedtime, so when this day comes, they kinda saw it coming, and our would-be dictator would be hung, shot and desecrated in every possible manner imaginable before he even knew what hit him.

    #5954
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    Thorizan wrote:

    Dunbar’s Number… any society that gets above that starts to become corrupt… and also starts to lift itself out of poverty.

    So… can we have one without the other? I think THAT is an interesting question to persue.

    Good question. I think it is important to recognize that people can organize into more complex structures, federations of tribes, and so on.

    It is safe to assume that sooner or later the bureaucrat who runs the daily affairs of any agglomeration of people is going to decide its in the best interest of everyone if he upsurps ultimate power. After all, think of the children!

    There is nothing you can do to stop him from trying, but at least you can make sure to read Spooner to your children at bedtime, so when this day comes, they kinda saw it coming, and our would-be dictator would be hung, shot and desecrated in every possible manner imaginable before he even knew what hit him.

    [/quote]

    Good point. Especially since 150 (75 breeding pairs) is insufficient to ensure sufficient genetic diversity in a human colony.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6027
    Avatar of The-Luggage
    The-Luggage
    Participant

    Couldn’t you maintain Dunbar’s number in essense with a staggered schedule system such as described by Skinner in ‘Walden Two’?

    #6030
    Avatar of Patri
    Patri
    Keymaster

    I agree that humans have many shortcomings, and that a good government will handle these better that current governments. I don’t think it is straightforward to incorporate human nature into government, but an experimental ecosystem like seasteading will surely do a better job than the current system.

    #6031
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    An experimental system will not do better just because it is experimental. The broad idea of seasteading should do better than current governments because it allows people the option of leaving. Of course, if seastead societies are built out of many large platforms… you’ve got to convince 400 others to leave with you… and actually own the platform you’ll be leaving with. Very likely infrastructure, food production and industry will all be centrally located on their own platforms with dedicated residential platforms providing the quiet living space… which means when you leave you’ll be leaving your ability to eat and work behind as well. Show me the freedom of choice in such a society.

    Indeed human nature is the root of societal failure. Not to take it into account when building social systems like government is to speed along that eventual fate. Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be neccesary.” (Federalist #51) The American experiment built in a seperation of powers to combat human nature. The key factor was that the general population was built of a majority of people concerned with doing right. Of them John Adams said, “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Of course, incase anyone think I wax philosophical… he also said, “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.

    I’m not saying seasteading is doomed to failure… far from it. I only forward the idea that without proper forthought into the nature of humanity and our long history of messing up government we will find ourselves in failure faster than any regime in recent memory. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Take the time and consider how this is ACTUALLY going to function.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate