This community is too smart not understand the virtues of decentralization in management systems.
Understand... I'm not trying to patronize you or slight you... just express my opinion here and hope you at least give it a look before rendering a judgement.
Here we go:
Think back to the old city states in Europe. Look at them in your mind on a map. Notice how at the center of each is a large capital city from which everything is run. Okay, note the history where in each of those powers going into nation states continually tried to expand. They'd eat far flung islands and various powers all over europe only to lose them again if they were too far from their base of power.
Note the continuing failure of those powers to hold on to anything that was more then about 500 miles from their capital city.
Then consider the great exceptions in this pattern... the colonial empires of Spain and England. Note that they had to employ a decentralized power structure because employing a centralized power structure was obviously impossible at that range. Notice how powers that previously were unable to hold on to things at more then 500 miles suddenly can hold on to things thousands and thousands of miles away.
Why? Decentralization. Limited autonomy.
Now consider the United States. The US is one of the largest countries in the world both by geography and population. Yet it holds together better then many powers a great deal smaller. Why is that?
There is a general lack of insurrection due to democratic and republican governmental forms. However, just as important is the state system where in local populations have a greater say in local administration then does the national system or people that don't actually live there. This ensures that government is more responsive to local issues, attentive to local sentiments, and that if there are conflicts of interest they tend to favor local interests rather then national interests. This helps bind the country together because there is less downside/cost to the union.
What breaks apart big countries is ultimately that the people in those countries decide it is in their interest to break up rather then stay together.
To help hold a union together, you want as much as possible for there to be few if any downsides to the union and as many upsides as possible. The instant it is more in the interest of a given portion of the country to break away then stay together you will have to hold a gun to their head to hold them there.
Holding that gun there is both expensive and unstable because the instant the gun comes off they'll likely slit your throat or equivalent.
Police states are very aware of this which is why they make a point of never putting the gun down. Examples of what happens when the gun gets put down would be the French revolution... bodies in the street, corpses hanging from rafters, and other fun stuff. A general explosion of violence against the authorities.
I'm going through all this just to explain my understanding of the basic political forces that hold large numbers of people together.
Now if you look at the US government, we have a federated system rather then a unitary government. That is, unlike France or England, the US has 50 states with limited autonomy as well as various territories that are afforded something of the same interdependence.
This is a hierarchical command structure. With lower and more localized elements given authority to make certain types of decisions independently while other nominally higher authorities are given responsibility over different decisions.
Ideally, you want the more localized systems to handle all problems that they reasonably can handle while those at the higher and more generalized level are left with either managing the interrelationships of these powers or dealing with miscellaneous problems that impact all the various states.
In effect, you want the localized systems to handle nearly everything themselves... really as much as you can pos
Its worse then corruption... its incompetence. Basically its all too complicated for the limited number of politicians to manage and most of them don't really care anyway. So its all left to bureaucrats that often don't really have authority to do anything unless its kept quiet... which means there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality which means they just take the path of least resistance in all cases.
Now you could give them more authority... but then you wouldn't have even a fig leaf of democracy because you'd have a technocracy rather then a democracy. We already see some of that happening already with the EPA etc just doing what they want indifferent to law, court orders, or public opinion. But it could get a lot worse.
Truly, I think the solution is to scale back the government's authority or localize things more so the politicians aren't so overwhelmed with responsibilities. I really think they're just overwhelmed with the complexity of the system they're supposed to govern. So... simplify it by decentralizing it. Increase local autonomy and you if anything enhance democracy while improving efficiency.
Will corruption go away? No... it will just be more local instead of federal which I'm actually happier with because local corruption at least recognizes that the corrupt have to still live in the place they're being corrupt. If its done at the federal level then the corruption can profit people thousands of miles away that care nothing at all for the consequences.
one of the more depressing things is that no one is building a von neumann machine.
We have at least one of these already... the total human industrial complex on earth is of course capable of replicating itself.
The problem is that its dispersed, poorly organized, designed more for production efficiency and capacity then for space/mass efficiency... etc.
If you started out with one large warehouse and started putting at least one of every factory machine in existence... and then started combining them where they do similar things that can be tweaked so one machine does two roles... and then started miniaturizing them so you could squeeze the whole thing down. The point is that you should be able to fit a machine that can replicate itself and all human industry into a launchable package.
Consider that everything we have was made with these soft clumsy hands. Everything we have comes from those hands making tools, which made tools, which made tools, which make everything.
So we need to make something that can do that on mars or the moon or anywhere. Ideally not soft organic hands... those work on earth where our biosphere supports our life... but on other worlds you're going to need robots. And if you're building robots you might as well make the robots more specialized so you can skip a few steps.
We should have already done this... launch a package at the moon and mars... and then just have the robots dig in and start building an industrial infrastructure.
Exactly. And the point is not to put women on the spot but merely to highlight the absurdity of blaming geek subculture for this tragedy.
Humans crazy and otherwise kill other humans all the time... deliberately. This was a factor long before the concept of geek even existed and the contribution of this subculture to that death toll is just about zero point zero carried on to at least five decimal places. Did I pull that stat out of my ass? Obviously... but am I wrong... I'm close enough to hold the point.
If you want to blame anyone then blame the people that changed US mental health law.
We had at one point about a million people in involuntary asylums in the 60s.
Say what you will about that, upon changing those laws the vast majority of those people became permanently homeless or entered the prison system because they broke various laws.
So rather then put them in medical facilities where they are taken care of, afforded a chance at peace, and kept from disrupting society.... we instead have them rambling and shambling through our cities, crapping on the side walk, randomly getting into fights that cause them to get mixed into violent prison populations where of course they disrupt what order exists there by continuing to randomly attack people, and of course we the crazies that families know need to be put away but have no means to do so because the laws basically make it impossible until they literally kill someone.
So you tell me which is preferable? Putting disturbed people into medical institutions or filling the parks, prisons, and society at large with obviously disturbed people?
This is stupid. We've had our little experiment of "what if"... we know now... kindly reverse the dumb change and accept the evidence.
Look... if its relevant then its relevant... its just inconvenient to have yet more variables complicating the calculations.
Do we have a proxy value for these waves yet? Some correlating calculation like the orbits of the planets/moon/oscillation of the earth somehow boiling down to wave heights in location X? Because that would be useful. Short of that, we're back got square one with our historic calculations and we need to put some buoys out around Antarctica to build up a data set.
For this actually work, comcast hast offer these rates to third parties using their lines. That is, comcast must offer a discounted rate to third party providers that are offering content to low income or poorly served areas.
If it only goes through comcast directly then comcast has the ability to control costs by limiting service.
And you know that would be fine only they seem to be offering congress this deal to pay for their monopoly rights. Well, I don't want them to be a monopoly and I'd just as soon tell them to screw themselves. However, if they are going to get their monopoly rights then at the very least we should get them to pay for it with what they SAY they're going to pay.
If congress doesn't force this as an open provider policy then they've been suckered.
Tell you what, when geeks start killing people in the same numbers as pretty much any other group then you can lay this at our feet like we have a problem.
I'm pretty sure that per capita we're a pretty peaceful group. So how about this society... how about you apologize you apologize first?
I'm sure there are more mothers that have drowned their babies then there are geeks that have gone on murder sprees... So how about it mothers, care to apologize for your culture of violence and hate?
I thought not.
This whole thing is vastly over blown.
You want to know who is responsible? Crazy people.
Literally just people off their meds. You'll find them in every demographic. And it doesn't matter who they are... an 80 old lady so inclined could kill a lot of people. In fact, there have been little old lady serial killers. They tend to do it with poison.
But the point is that the geek culture such as it is, bears no responsibility for what is committed by literally ONE guy.
Evolution is just one theory in science amongst tens of thousands. It also happens to be one that given religious groups don't like... but whether or not you believe in it or understand it doesn't mean you understand anything else in science.
Its all too common for people to adopt or refute a scientific position as if it were a political position. And then assume scientific sophistication merely on that basis.
Science no matter how much the politicians and religious leaders would like it to be... is not politics or religion. It is science.
It is not a matter of faith or of popular support. You do not believe in science. You do the math. Its a process. You go through that process and that process is science.
If you don't go through this process then science didn't happen.
Its not like a court trial. You don't have advocates and prosecutors. Rather, everyone has to have an open mind and seek the truth for its own sake.
That is science.
Not only do most people not do this but most don't even understand what that means. And so they have no claim to scientific sophistication being that they're more often then not politically minded rather then scientifically minded.
The truth is not a democracy or a matter of faith. It merely is.
yes and we all do that but it doesn't mean that the game makes you a sociopath or psychopath or in any way really changes your personality.
It is play. That is my point. Not reality. Play.
Again and for the fucking last time... Psychologists have analyzed people that play games of all kinds and found that you're about as likely to have your personality changed by playing Grand Theft Auto as you are to get it changed by playing Risk.
This is a mindless article supported by mindless people.
In most games where you kill something there isn't really a great deal of choice. You either kill that NPC or die... or lose... or something.
And expecting anyone sane to feel emotional attachment to an NPC is unreasonable especially if they're not established characters but rather just faceless cannon fodder.
There have been many psychological evaluations on children that engage in make believe violence.
The conclusion has been that video games penetrate about as deeply as a child playing with plastic soldiers in a sand box... aka basically no penetration what so ever. If you have experienced emotional loss and anguish in these situations understand that is very unusual.
If you let these things on the road then there's no point having a license at all.
It loses all meaning. An autonomous car doesn't need passengers or drivers. It goes from point A to point B navigating traffic, roads, right of way, etc...
Or it doesn't.
If it does, then whomever is on board is irrelevant.
If it doesn't then their requisite licenses are as irrelevant as that same person riding as passenger while a drunk took the wheel.
Either the robot is competent or it is not. These things are not being billed as sophisticated cruise control which means if the robot makes a mistake you will NOT intercept it. The consequences will happen.
And when they do... and they will because software isn't perfect.. the legal clusterfuck when someone tries to establish who is to blame for the pile up... the damages... the possible loss of life.
The current idea is to just make the insurance company responsible. But that means criminal liability is impossible. The insurance company just pays out whatever the policy says and that's the end of the story.
These things are a bad idea. I think they make sense under controlled conditions. For example, in the long straight highways between cities and only in that case used by long haul trucks. Effectively turning the trucks into road going trains.
But in a city? Moronic. For the average user? There are people I wouldn't trust with a car that get licenses... and I guess it would trust a robot over those people. But look at the damage the automatic transmission caused. Stop and go traffic is literally caused by the automatic transmission. It didn't happen before the automatic and would be unthinkable if all the cars were manual.
In any case... this is likely going to happen whatever my opinion is on the matter.
Just get ready for people to have thought this through very carefully... because they haven't... the unintended consequences are whistling down and are as usual most likely to hit the people that don't hear it coming.
Then you of course feel badly when people die in movies, books, etc?
Or are video games the only medium of artistic expression that must be held accountable for displays of violence while of course movies and books have no responsibility what so ever?
This whole thing is little more then the last generation shaking its tennis ball capped stick at the next telling them to get off his lawn.
Yes. We'll always need new books. Because human beings will always have new things to say in a new way. Because even if what you do might have been done before you never did it. And now that you have you join those that came before.
We must never stop writing. Never stop thinking. Never stop making things.
Exactly. You bring the animals into human society. Make them a social status symbol... I have something rare... I have something expensive... I have something exotic. And that demand supplies the breeders with money... and so long as the breeders are paid the species will not die.
Wrong. They are not the only species that does that. Furthermore, they are endangered because they're not actually that common which means they don't actually process that much of anything.
So no.
Look, if you want to prepetuate the myth that every single species is utterly indespensible and the whole ecosystem would collapse without them then you run into a big logical problem...
Species have gone extinct for millions of years and yet the ecosystem didn't collapse. Why? Here is where you try to claim that the ecosystem did collapse it was just a long time ago and its recovered since. Well, the issue with that little theory is that species never stopped going extinct and so if your theory was valid... and its not... then the ecosystem never would recover.
So please... put the crystal rubbing bullshit away. I have no patience for it. If you actually want to save some of these species rather then jerk off then my suggestion here would save species. Their habitats in many cases are gone.
Gone. Over. No more.
So... you can either let them die rummaging through garbage or you can let them into your home and give them a chance.
I think I noted elsewhere that there are wild pigs. That's not the point however... the point is that any species that becomes part of the human ecosystem gains the benefit of our resource and intelligence base.
We have a limited set of species that we have domesticated but there is no reason why we couldn't expand that radically. Yes, the different species would have their own quirks. However, farmers and pet owners would have years and years to figure those out and adapt. What is more, companies would start making products for those species. So if they have special needs... they would be met.
This has been proven by psychologists repeatedly. Just because someone does something in fantasy doesn't mean they would do it in reality or even see it the same way as they would in reality.
We understand it is pretend. When you kill someone in a game there is no moral feeling of guilt because they're not people. Its as real as a 6 year old playing war with plastic soldiers and then randomly knocking a few of them down as dead.
It has no impact on our psychology. Its play.
Any so called psychologist that doesn't grasp that is a hack.
Slashdot Mirror
This community is too smart not understand the virtues of decentralization in management systems.
Understand... I'm not trying to patronize you or slight you... just express my opinion here and hope you at least give it a look before rendering a judgement.
Here we go:
Think back to the old city states in Europe. Look at them in your mind on a map. Notice how at the center of each is a large capital city from which everything is run. Okay, note the history where in each of those powers going into nation states continually tried to expand. They'd eat far flung islands and various powers all over europe only to lose them again if they were too far from their base of power.
Note the continuing failure of those powers to hold on to anything that was more then about 500 miles from their capital city.
Then consider the great exceptions in this pattern... the colonial empires of Spain and England. Note that they had to employ a decentralized power structure because employing a centralized power structure was obviously impossible at that range. Notice how powers that previously were unable to hold on to things at more then 500 miles suddenly can hold on to things thousands and thousands of miles away.
Why? Decentralization. Limited autonomy.
Now consider the United States. The US is one of the largest countries in the world both by geography and population. Yet it holds together better then many powers a great deal smaller. Why is that?
There is a general lack of insurrection due to democratic and republican governmental forms. However, just as important is the state system where in local populations have a greater say in local administration then does the national system or people that don't actually live there. This ensures that government is more responsive to local issues, attentive to local sentiments, and that if there are conflicts of interest they tend to favor local interests rather then national interests. This helps bind the country together because there is less downside/cost to the union.
What breaks apart big countries is ultimately that the people in those countries decide it is in their interest to break up rather then stay together.
To help hold a union together, you want as much as possible for there to be few if any downsides to the union and as many upsides as possible. The instant it is more in the interest of a given portion of the country to break away then stay together you will have to hold a gun to their head to hold them there.
Holding that gun there is both expensive and unstable because the instant the gun comes off they'll likely slit your throat or equivalent.
Police states are very aware of this which is why they make a point of never putting the gun down. Examples of what happens when the gun gets put down would be the French revolution... bodies in the street, corpses hanging from rafters, and other fun stuff. A general explosion of violence against the authorities.
I'm going through all this just to explain my understanding of the basic political forces that hold large numbers of people together.
Now if you look at the US government, we have a federated system rather then a unitary government. That is, unlike France or England, the US has 50 states with limited autonomy as well as various territories that are afforded something of the same interdependence.
This is a hierarchical command structure. With lower and more localized elements given authority to make certain types of decisions independently while other nominally higher authorities are given responsibility over different decisions.
Ideally, you want the more localized systems to handle all problems that they reasonably can handle while those at the higher and more generalized level are left with either managing the interrelationships of these powers or dealing with miscellaneous problems that impact all the various states.
In effect, you want the localized systems to handle nearly everything themselves... really as much as you can pos
Its worse then corruption... its incompetence. Basically its all too complicated for the limited number of politicians to manage and most of them don't really care anyway. So its all left to bureaucrats that often don't really have authority to do anything unless its kept quiet... which means there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality which means they just take the path of least resistance in all cases.
Now you could give them more authority... but then you wouldn't have even a fig leaf of democracy because you'd have a technocracy rather then a democracy. We already see some of that happening already with the EPA etc just doing what they want indifferent to law, court orders, or public opinion. But it could get a lot worse.
Truly, I think the solution is to scale back the government's authority or localize things more so the politicians aren't so overwhelmed with responsibilities. I really think they're just overwhelmed with the complexity of the system they're supposed to govern. So... simplify it by decentralizing it. Increase local autonomy and you if anything enhance democracy while improving efficiency.
Will corruption go away? No... it will just be more local instead of federal which I'm actually happier with because local corruption at least recognizes that the corrupt have to still live in the place they're being corrupt. If its done at the federal level then the corruption can profit people thousands of miles away that care nothing at all for the consequences.
one of the more depressing things is that no one is building a von neumann machine.
We have at least one of these already... the total human industrial complex on earth is of course capable of replicating itself.
The problem is that its dispersed, poorly organized, designed more for production efficiency and capacity then for space/mass efficiency... etc.
If you started out with one large warehouse and started putting at least one of every factory machine in existence... and then started combining them where they do similar things that can be tweaked so one machine does two roles... and then started miniaturizing them so you could squeeze the whole thing down. The point is that you should be able to fit a machine that can replicate itself and all human industry into a launchable package.
Consider that everything we have was made with these soft clumsy hands. Everything we have comes from those hands making tools, which made tools, which made tools, which make everything.
So we need to make something that can do that on mars or the moon or anywhere. Ideally not soft organic hands... those work on earth where our biosphere supports our life... but on other worlds you're going to need robots. And if you're building robots you might as well make the robots more specialized so you can skip a few steps.
We should have already done this... launch a package at the moon and mars... and then just have the robots dig in and start building an industrial infrastructure.
Exactly. And the point is not to put women on the spot but merely to highlight the absurdity of blaming geek subculture for this tragedy.
Humans crazy and otherwise kill other humans all the time... deliberately. This was a factor long before the concept of geek even existed and the contribution of this subculture to that death toll is just about zero point zero carried on to at least five decimal places. Did I pull that stat out of my ass? Obviously... but am I wrong... I'm close enough to hold the point.
If you want to blame anyone then blame the people that changed US mental health law.
We had at one point about a million people in involuntary asylums in the 60s.
Say what you will about that, upon changing those laws the vast majority of those people became permanently homeless or entered the prison system because they broke various laws.
So rather then put them in medical facilities where they are taken care of, afforded a chance at peace, and kept from disrupting society.... we instead have them rambling and shambling through our cities, crapping on the side walk, randomly getting into fights that cause them to get mixed into violent prison populations where of course they disrupt what order exists there by continuing to randomly attack people, and of course we the crazies that families know need to be put away but have no means to do so because the laws basically make it impossible until they literally kill someone.
So you tell me which is preferable? Putting disturbed people into medical institutions or filling the parks, prisons, and society at large with obviously disturbed people?
This is stupid. We've had our little experiment of "what if"... we know now... kindly reverse the dumb change and accept the evidence.
... and poorly recorded ones at that.
Look... if its relevant then its relevant... its just inconvenient to have yet more variables complicating the calculations.
Do we have a proxy value for these waves yet? Some correlating calculation like the orbits of the planets/moon/oscillation of the earth somehow boiling down to wave heights in location X? Because that would be useful. Short of that, we're back got square one with our historic calculations and we need to put some buoys out around Antarctica to build up a data set.
For this actually work, comcast hast offer these rates to third parties using their lines. That is, comcast must offer a discounted rate to third party providers that are offering content to low income or poorly served areas.
If it only goes through comcast directly then comcast has the ability to control costs by limiting service.
And you know that would be fine only they seem to be offering congress this deal to pay for their monopoly rights. Well, I don't want them to be a monopoly and I'd just as soon tell them to screw themselves. However, if they are going to get their monopoly rights then at the very least we should get them to pay for it with what they SAY they're going to pay.
If congress doesn't force this as an open provider policy then they've been suckered.
Tell you what, when geeks start killing people in the same numbers as pretty much any other group then you can lay this at our feet like we have a problem.
I'm pretty sure that per capita we're a pretty peaceful group. So how about this society... how about you apologize you apologize first?
I'm sure there are more mothers that have drowned their babies then there are geeks that have gone on murder sprees... So how about it mothers, care to apologize for your culture of violence and hate?
I thought not.
This whole thing is vastly over blown.
You want to know who is responsible? Crazy people.
Literally just people off their meds. You'll find them in every demographic. And it doesn't matter who they are... an 80 old lady so inclined could kill a lot of people. In fact, there have been little old lady serial killers. They tend to do it with poison.
But the point is that the geek culture such as it is, bears no responsibility for what is committed by literally ONE guy.
2064? why not 2068?
Evolution is just one theory in science amongst tens of thousands. It also happens to be one that given religious groups don't like... but whether or not you believe in it or understand it doesn't mean you understand anything else in science.
Its all too common for people to adopt or refute a scientific position as if it were a political position. And then assume scientific sophistication merely on that basis.
Science no matter how much the politicians and religious leaders would like it to be... is not politics or religion. It is science.
It is not a matter of faith or of popular support. You do not believe in science. You do the math. Its a process. You go through that process and that process is science.
If you don't go through this process then science didn't happen.
Its not like a court trial. You don't have advocates and prosecutors. Rather, everyone has to have an open mind and seek the truth for its own sake.
That is science.
Not only do most people not do this but most don't even understand what that means. And so they have no claim to scientific sophistication being that they're more often then not politically minded rather then scientifically minded.
The truth is not a democracy or a matter of faith. It merely is.
yes and we all do that but it doesn't mean that the game makes you a sociopath or psychopath or in any way really changes your personality.
It is play. That is my point. Not reality. Play.
Again and for the fucking last time... Psychologists have analyzed people that play games of all kinds and found that you're about as likely to have your personality changed by playing Grand Theft Auto as you are to get it changed by playing Risk.
This is a mindless article supported by mindless people.
You idiots label me flame bait and then the next day google says they have a car without a steering wheel...
which means I was right and you're stupid.
Eat it.
In most games where you kill something there isn't really a great deal of choice. You either kill that NPC or die... or lose... or something.
And expecting anyone sane to feel emotional attachment to an NPC is unreasonable especially if they're not established characters but rather just faceless cannon fodder.
There have been many psychological evaluations on children that engage in make believe violence.
The conclusion has been that video games penetrate about as deeply as a child playing with plastic soldiers in a sand box... aka basically no penetration what so ever. If you have experienced emotional loss and anguish in these situations understand that is very unusual.
If you let these things on the road then there's no point having a license at all.
It loses all meaning. An autonomous car doesn't need passengers or drivers. It goes from point A to point B navigating traffic, roads, right of way, etc...
Or it doesn't.
If it does, then whomever is on board is irrelevant.
If it doesn't then their requisite licenses are as irrelevant as that same person riding as passenger while a drunk took the wheel.
Either the robot is competent or it is not. These things are not being billed as sophisticated cruise control which means if the robot makes a mistake you will NOT intercept it. The consequences will happen.
And when they do... and they will because software isn't perfect.. the legal clusterfuck when someone tries to establish who is to blame for the pile up... the damages... the possible loss of life.
The current idea is to just make the insurance company responsible. But that means criminal liability is impossible. The insurance company just pays out whatever the policy says and that's the end of the story.
These things are a bad idea. I think they make sense under controlled conditions. For example, in the long straight highways between cities and only in that case used by long haul trucks. Effectively turning the trucks into road going trains.
But in a city? Moronic. For the average user? There are people I wouldn't trust with a car that get licenses... and I guess it would trust a robot over those people. But look at the damage the automatic transmission caused. Stop and go traffic is literally caused by the automatic transmission. It didn't happen before the automatic and would be unthinkable if all the cars were manual.
In any case... this is likely going to happen whatever my opinion is on the matter.
Just get ready for people to have thought this through very carefully... because they haven't... the unintended consequences are whistling down and are as usual most likely to hit the people that don't hear it coming.
Who is paying you?
How sick and narcissistic do you have to be to think that only someone being paid could disagree with you?
Who the fuck do you think you are? Your opinion is worth nothing more then mine. How dare you presume to claim such a thing.
Then you of course feel badly when people die in movies, books, etc?
Or are video games the only medium of artistic expression that must be held accountable for displays of violence while of course movies and books have no responsibility what so ever?
This whole thing is little more then the last generation shaking its tennis ball capped stick at the next telling them to get off his lawn.
Nothing more.
where did I say you shouldn't read old books?
Check your meds.
Don't root for the destruction of things you don't understand. Its bigoted.
first link on google...
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5206...
Wrong. Quality people that put quality time into quality work need to get paid.
Yes there are mass market producers that produce large amounts of drek. But that's what some people want to buy.
Don't try to destroy the market simply because you're full of misguided hate... its ugly and pathetic.
Yes. We'll always need new books. Because human beings will always have new things to say in a new way. Because even if what you do might have been done before you never did it. And now that you have you join those that came before.
We must never stop writing. Never stop thinking. Never stop making things.
Exactly. You bring the animals into human society. Make them a social status symbol... I have something rare... I have something expensive... I have something exotic. And that demand supplies the breeders with money... and so long as the breeders are paid the species will not die.
Wrong. They are not the only species that does that. Furthermore, they are endangered because they're not actually that common which means they don't actually process that much of anything.
So no.
Look, if you want to prepetuate the myth that every single species is utterly indespensible and the whole ecosystem would collapse without them then you run into a big logical problem...
Species have gone extinct for millions of years and yet the ecosystem didn't collapse. Why? Here is where you try to claim that the ecosystem did collapse it was just a long time ago and its recovered since. Well, the issue with that little theory is that species never stopped going extinct and so if your theory was valid... and its not... then the ecosystem never would recover.
So please... put the crystal rubbing bullshit away. I have no patience for it. If you actually want to save some of these species rather then jerk off then my suggestion here would save species. Their habitats in many cases are gone.
Gone. Over. No more.
So... you can either let them die rummaging through garbage or you can let them into your home and give them a chance.
This could be the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yep... they are more compaq these days then HP.
I think I noted elsewhere that there are wild pigs. That's not the point however... the point is that any species that becomes part of the human ecosystem gains the benefit of our resource and intelligence base.
We have a limited set of species that we have domesticated but there is no reason why we couldn't expand that radically. Yes, the different species would have their own quirks. However, farmers and pet owners would have years and years to figure those out and adapt. What is more, companies would start making products for those species. So if they have special needs... they would be met.
This has been proven by psychologists repeatedly. Just because someone does something in fantasy doesn't mean they would do it in reality or even see it the same way as they would in reality.
We understand it is pretend. When you kill someone in a game there is no moral feeling of guilt because they're not people. Its as real as a 6 year old playing war with plastic soldiers and then randomly knocking a few of them down as dead.
It has no impact on our psychology. Its play.
Any so called psychologist that doesn't grasp that is a hack.