Slashdot Mirror

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/02/194243/paper-evolution-favors-cooperation-over-selfishness
"Conventional wisdom has suggested selfishness is most beneficial evolutionary strategy for humans, while cooperation is suboptimal. This dovetailed with a political undercurrent dating back more than a century, starting with social Darwinism. A new paper in the journal Nature Communications casts doubt on this school of thought. The paper shows that while selfishness is optimal in the short term, it fails in the long term. Cooperation is seen as the most effective long term human evolutionary strategy."

That said, here is something I wrote a few years ago:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
----
Or as I wrote elsewhere in my own words: ... I agree with the sentiment of the Einstein quote [That we should approach the universe with compassion], but that sentiment itself is only part of a larger difficult-to-easily-resolve situation. It become more the Yin/Yang or Meshwork/Hierarchy situation I see when I look out my home office window into a forest. On the surface it is a lovely scene of trees as part of a forest. Still, I try to see *both* the peaceful majesty of the trees and how these large trees are brutally shading out of existence saplings which are would-be competitors (even shading out their own children). Yet, even as big trees shade out some of their own children, they also put massive resources into creating a next generation, one of which will indeed likely someday replace them when they fall. I try to remember there is both an unseen silent chemical war going on out there where plants produce defense compounds they secrete in the soil to inhibit the growth of other plant species (or insects or fungi) as a vile act of territoriality and often expansionism, and yet also the result is a good spacing of biomass to near optimally convert sunlight to living matter and resist and recover from wind and ice damage. I try to recall that there is the most brutal of competition between species of plants and animals and fungi and so on over water, nutrients (including from eating other creatures), sunlight, and space, while at the same time each bacterial colony or multicellular organism (like a large Pine tree) is a marvel of cooperation towards some implicitly shared purpose. I see the awesome result of both simplicity and complexity in the organizational structure of all these organisms and their DNA, RNA, and so on, adapted so well in most cases to the current state of such a complex web of being. Yet I can only guess the tiniest fraction of what suffering that selective shaping through variation and selection must have entailed for untold numbers of creatures over billions of years. To be truthful, I can actually *really* see none of that right now as it is dark outside this early near Winter Solstice time (and an icy rain is falling) beyond perhaps a silhouette outline, so I must remember and imagine it, perhaps as Einstein suggests as an "optical delusion of [my] consciousness". :-)
So much for "world peace" when even the tranquil seeming forests have so much Yin-Yang complexity going on within and around the trees. :-) The best I feel we can hope for is balance (like Ursula K. Le Guin's writings):
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/
or maybe, transcendence to some form of universe certainly way beyond our present understanding; example, with its own flaws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Intellect
But still, no matter what examples the universes sets before us, or in what proportion,

... to this plane of existence. As I wrote:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
----

Or as I wrote elsewhere in my own words: ... I agree with the sentiment of the Einstein quote [That we should approach the universe with compassion], but that sentiment itself is only part of a larger difficult-to-easily-resolve situation. It become more the Yin/Yang or Meshwork/Hierarchy situation I see when I look out my home office window into a forest. On the surface it is a lovely scene of trees as part of a forest. Still, I try to see *both* the peaceful majesty of the trees and how these large trees are brutally shading out of existence saplings which are would-be competitors (even shading out their own children). Yet, even as big trees shade out some of their own children, they also put massive resources into creating a next generation, one of which will indeed likely someday replace them when they fall. I try to remember there is both an unseen silent chemical war going on out there where plants produce defense compounds they secrete in the soil to inhibit the growth of other plant species (or insects or fungi) as a vile act of territoriality and often expansionism, and yet also the result is a good spacing of biomass to near optimally convert sunlight to living matter and resist and recover from wind and ice damage. I try to recall that there is the most brutal of competition between species of plants and animals and fungi and so on over water, nutrients (including from eating other creatures), sunlight, and space, while at the same time each bacterial colony or multicellular organism (like a large Pine tree) is a marvel of cooperation towards some implicitly shared purpose. I see the awesome result of both simplicity and complexity in the organizational structure of all these organisms and their DNA, RNA, and so on, adapted so well in most cases to the current state of such a complex web of being. Yet I can only guess the tiniest fraction of what suffering that selective shaping through variation and selection must have entailed for untold numbers of creatures over billions of years. To be truthful, I can actually *really* see none of that right now as it is dark outside this early near Winter Solstice time (and an icy rain is falling) beyond perhaps a silhouette outline, so I must remember and imagine it, perhaps as Einstein suggests as an "optical delusion of [my] consciousness". :-)

So much for "world peace" when even the tranquil seeming forests have so much Yin-Yang complexity going on within and around the trees. :-) The best I feel we can hope for is balance (like Ursula K. Le Guin's writings):
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/
or maybe, transcendence to some form of universe certainly way beyond our present understanding; example, with its own flaws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Intellect

But still, no matter what examples the universes sets before us, or in what proportion, as *ethical* and *spiritual* beings, we humans can choose a different way, and at least approximate world peace among ourselves as best we can. Something I learned from an old and wise biologist (Larry Slobodkin) who studied both philosophy and nature.

What a dangerous game life is, especially living in "interesting times". :-(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

The good news is, no one will get out of this infinite game alive anyway, so we might as well have some fun with it 'till then. :-)

There certainly is a lot of truth to your point. To broaden it out a bit, here is something I wrote years ago:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
" ... I agree with the sentiment of the Einstein quote [That we should approach the universe with compassion], but that sentiment itself is only part of a larger difficult-to-easily-resolve situation. It become more the Yin/Yang or Meshwork/Hierarchy situation I see when I look out my home office window into a forest. On the surface it is a lovely scene of trees as part of a forest. Still, I try to see *both* the peaceful majesty of the trees and how these large trees are brutally shading out of existence saplings which are would-be competitors (even shading out their own children). Yet, even as big trees shade out some of their own children, they also put massive resources into creating a next generation, one of which will indeed likely someday replace them when they fall. I try to remember there is both an unseen silent chemical war going on out there where plants produce defense compounds they secrete in the soil to inhibit the growth of other plant species (or insects or fungi) as a vile act of territoriality and often expansionism, and yet also the result is a good spacing of biomass to near optimally convert sunlight to living matter and resist and recover from wind and ice damage. I try to recall that there is the most brutal of competition between species of plants and animals and fungi and so on over water, nutrients (including from eating other creatures), sunlight, and space, while at the same time each bacterial colony or multicellular organism (like a large Pine tree) is a marvel of cooperation towards some implicitly shared purpose. I see the awesome result of both simplicity and complexity in the organizational structure of all these organisms and their DNA, RNA, and so on, adapted so well in most cases to the current state of such a complex web of being. Yet I can only guess the tiniest fraction of what suffering that selective shaping through variation and selection must have entailed for untold numbers of creatures over billions of years. To be truthful, I can actually *really* see none of that right now as it is dark outside this early near Winter Solstice time (and an icy rain is falling) beyond perhaps a silhouette outline, so I must remember and imagine it, perhaps as Einstein suggests as an "optical delusion of [my] consciousness". :-)
    So much for "world peace" when even the tranquil seeming forests have so much Yin-Yang complexity going on within and around the trees. :-) The best I feel we can hope for is balance (like Ursula K. Le Guin's writings):
        http://www.ursulakleguin.com/
or maybe, transcendence to some form of universe certainly way beyond our present understanding; example, with its own flaws:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Intellect
But still, no matter what examples the universes sets before us, or in what proportion, as *ethical* and *spiritual* beings, we humans can choose a different way, and at least approximate world peace among ourselves as best we can. Something I learned from an old and wise biologist (Larry Slobodkin) who studied both philosophy and nature."

So, we can make choices, as sentient creatures, about how we want to live. The current laws of physics may constrain those choices, but we can still make choices as individuals and collectives. How do we want to live? How can we shape our rules, norms, prices, and architecture to influence that behavior? (Lawrence Lessig's point in "Code 2.0").

Actually, it is pretty clear that excerpts of modest size are allowed most of the time under fair use, but the whole work (even if it is short) becomes a lot more debatable. There are still occasions when quoting/reproducing an entire work is okay, but these are less common.

If I was Doctorow, I sure wouldn't have quoted the whole of LeGuin's "On Serious Literature" story without seeking permission first. Look at it. It's pretty long, and what Doctorow did by quoting the whole thing was was therefore pretty dumb. Just because something is formatted as a "single paragraph" does not automatically mean quoting it is carte blanche okay, and usually if you are going to do that sort of thing (use something in its entirety) you do ask the author. See, it's this part that bugs me from Doctorow's comment:

"However, I still believe that my quotation was fair use."

That's a big HUH? from me. I'm not a lawyer, but, no, it almost certainly wasn't, and how Doctorow could fail to understand this is beyond my comprehension, especially after he "discussed it with copyright scholars". Yeah, he's technically right that "the proportion of the work in quotation is one factor in determining fair use, but not the only one", and he's right that "fair use" isn't something that is always clear, but did he ask how likely it would be for *his* use in *this*instance* to qualify for "fair use"? I bet the same batch of copyright scholars would reply with something like: "It's not impossible, but it has about a snowball's chance in hell".

I don't think any of this means LeGuin doesn't understand these things or has an archaic understanding of copyright (although I think she is wrong to imply copying an entire work is always not fair use, even if she is probably right in this instance). I think it means she understands copyright law and common courtesy pretty well, while Doctorow was way off, and she was justifiably miffed with him. The whole thing is an "I apologize, but still think I was right in the first place" apology. Not very satisfying.

So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?

From a brief overview of copyright issues from author's perspective her web site:

"... I don't even talk about electronic rights, which have become a total hornet's nest in the last few years; nor do I discuss the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system."

So it looks like she's not exactly in favor of (+INF-1) copyright terms and the like.

But the objection that Ursula LeGuin (and others) have to the Google Books deal is nothing to do with the term of copyright or direct control. It's the fact that as part of this settlement Google has decided that 'unless you actually explicitly object, in writing, to our use of your work, you give us implied right to publish.' LeGuin and others are objecting to the idea that /during the term of copyright/ authors should have to 'opt out' of having their works made freely available online, rather than giving them the choice of 'opting in.' This isn't about length of copyright or anything else. But having this method be opt-out rather than opt-in puts authors in a bad spot, especially if they've sold electronic reproduction rights to an eBook publisher and then Google comes along and puts the book up for free because the author didn't opt-out quickly enough.

Many of the authors I know of who object to this are ones who /also/ give away free (or incredibly cheap) eBooks of their work when the work is no longer held by a particular publisher. LeGuin herself has DRM-free eBooks of her own older work available for about $1 each through several eBook sellers, and is actually quite against extensions of copyright. As the forward to the brief explanation of copyright law she has on her website, she refers to:

...the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system.

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html

The problem LeGuin and those signing her petition have is the blanket expectation that anything -- even books which may be under a current publishing contract with some publisher who has bought electronic rights -- is fair game unless the copyright holder explicitly opts that individual title out. I mean, let's be fair, we've all seen that opt-out methods are generally not popular with those they target. How many of us actually liked the logic of opt-out spam, where if you haven't contacted the people to say /not/ to send them spam, then they assume you've given implicit permission to send you spam e-mail?

Her statements here appear contradictory. She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination. But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!

You're right but the biggest problem is the phrase 'information and literature.' I have a bigger problem with her logic that information should be controlled. Had she said 'arts and literature' I would have written a lengthy response attempting to identify with her or at least asking what her desired end state is. But when you start to advocate control of information, you kind of lose me on pure principle.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that fiction and nonfiction are a pure dichotomy and would open dialogues of the works of great historians. But I agree that capitalism (especially current implementations) have flaws when rewarding artists versus -- say -- an engineer. I would also agree that they are not always fairly reimbursed for their contributions to society. And that's a subjective thing so of course you will never get it right. But if you purchasing books used to be their major income and now -- if what she fears is true -- you can get a lot online for less cash, how is she reimbursed? I guess we'd need major clarifications on the Google book deal. Like who will set the prices? Google? The publisher? The author? She, of course, fears for this control and I hope she contacted Google about clarifications on this before speaking publicly as this could just be a misunderstanding.

In the end, she has a right to her opinion. She should never have joined the Authors Guild as they turned out to be horrid representatives for her. I don't know what effects -- if any -- her open resignation had in that community but she made a poor choice in joining. She has a right to express her opinion, I'm curious to see how many authors agree with her. As you pointed out, books are available for my lending in a library so what if an online scheme could do the same thing? Especially for out of print books and the agonizingly slowly growing population of those in the public domain.

Le Guin does not in fact support the 'Disney model', e.g. here:

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html

she describes the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system". She just doesn't want to be screwed over by Google in a land grab deal negotiated by an 'Authors Guild' that doesn't represent her.

'Because ultimately books are supposed to be "spread around", and not hidden away.
Should I put you on my list of "Big Jerks of Sci-Fi" next to Ellison now?'

No, you really shouldn't.

Partly because Le Guin is quite rightly regarded as one of the greatest of all SF authors (just the other day, aged 79, she won yet another Nebula), and deserves a bit of respect.

Partly because her annoyance at noticing violation of her copyright is perfectly understandable, and would be shared by the vast majority of authors (Cory Doctorow is writing in a subgenre and is active in a subculture where free distribution provides useful publicity - full marks to him, but not everyone can make this model work for them right now).

Partly because Le Guin is not as 'unenlightened' about copyright and sharing ideas as you might imagine, e.g. here:

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html

she describes the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system", and here:

http://nerdworld.blogs.time.com/2009/05/11/an-interview-with-ursula-k-le-guin/

(on JK Rowling) "It's great that so many people have enjoyed her fantasies and thereby rediscovered the genre. I could wish she'd been a little more generous about admitting influences, but so what. A lot of borrowing always goes on in an active, vital art form, not plagiarism, just learning from each other. No harm in saying so."

But mainly because Ellison is really in a class of his own...

I would suggest that you read through these essays by Ms. Le Guin. The sad fact is that authors rarely have any input in the film-ification of their work.

Wow, another Bester/"Stars" fan? I thought I was among the five people left in the world who loved this story. I was about 12-13 at the time I read it for the first of perhaps half-a-dozen times. Now that you've reminded me about it, I'll have to read it again. It's in my now almost fifty-year-old copy of A Treasury of Great Science Fiction edited by Anthony Boucher which I just found on the bookshelf.

I like many of the Heinlein novels from his early period, particularly the ones that were political in nature. His depiction of an America with politics based on fundamentalist Protestantism seems remarkably prescient since the Reagan years. Once sexuality appears on your childrens' horizons, it might be time to read Stranger in a Strange Land.

I was a pretty devout Catholic as a child and remember the impression Arthur C. Clarke's short story "The Star" made. Like the protagonist in the story, it may have marked the beginning of doubt.

Another author that I loved in my youth was "Andre" Norton, the pen name of Alice Mary Norton. When she started writing SF and fantasy, women were so rare in the profession that she took a man's first name to get published. Looking at her bibliography, I recall reading a number of books that she wrote in the late 1950's and early 1960's.

Finally if your children like fantasy, I strongly recommend Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy, another series intended for young readers but with great appeal to adults as well. Le Guin was the daughter of the famous American anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, an influence that's obvious in many of her best works like The Dispossessed.

Anybody that has read Ursula LeGuin knows what a HILF is.

...to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

Oh,yeah, also insert the standard "I submitted this story Tuesday" rant here, too.

Ursula K. Le Guin happens to be a long time SF and Fantasy author who happened to write a series of fantasy called EarthSea...

I'm sorry I can't give more detailed info as it's been about 6-7 years since I've read any of her books...

For more information about the Author, click here ...or wait until the slashdotting is over, or just google...

Unless we really want to live in a society where equality is enforced and nobody is allowed to have anymore than anyone else, the presence of thieves and other criminals is something we will always need to deal with.

• Look at the supposed "propertyless" societies people have tried (DPRK, USSR, PRC): the rules enforcers always had more then the rest.
• Read The (the title is itself a pun). Le Guin describes an society that not only had no property but didn't even have possessive pronouns. Even there there were people who tried to hoard things like clothing, and other ego/status related problems.

Metaphor: The Word for World is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin .

CC.

The Left Hand of Darkness was her first book and it was rejected by someone who felt the same way as you.

On a similar vein: the 'Toten Hosen' - a German punk band who sold zillions in the 90's were previously rejected by CBS (?) because they could not imagine that there would ever be a market for that kind of noise. There was.

Connie Willis? Sorry, I have never heard of her.

But why only the first two books, anyway? Are they planning on following up with the rest? After reading Wizard, I kept wondering, "Why am I here?" while reading Tombs. Farthest Shore helped make sense of that.

My recommendations reflect my reading biases. I like sci-fi that:
Expands our concept of what is possible.
Uses non-contempory settings, or alien worlds to allow the author to explore societies and individuals without the encumbrance of researching a real culture or history. (Speculative fiction)

That said, gadget heavy sci-fi, and sci-fi that relies on mystery and thriller techniques for it's tension, annoys me.

I'll recommend:

Anything by Arthur C Clark(Unathorised fan site). Childhood's End, while several decades old, still reads like a shocking new novel.

Almost anything by Ursula LeGuin(Link skips entry page). The Dispossessed Is a classic. She is far towards the speculative fiction end of the genre.

Philip K Dick is responsible for the short stories behind some of the more interesting sci-fi movies. Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, to name a few. The short stories behind them, of course, have much more substance. I've just read Ubik which left me dizzy for a week