That the lack of selection pressure should exert selection pressure is rather self-contradictory. The mechanism I was thinking of is, for example, a mutational genius who is recessively congenitally blind and marries a seeing person. The couple will have seeing children who might inherit the new genius gene. This is possible today but not possible in a society where blind people cannot survive.
If it all breaks down in some horrible disaster, chances are many will die fast adn the odd good mutation with them, since there's no reason why they should gather into large propagating advantages in the first place. If civilization breaks down, a huge proportion of humanity dies for lack of food, because without cities and technology there's no way to feed the numbers that exist today.
But if we disregard that factor, and just assume that there is food enough, what you say is indeed true, lots of people would die. For a simple example, consider the number of people who become almost blind without glasses but have essentially no handicap at all as long as they can buy suitable glasses.
We now adapt to the world that we live in today. If that world changes dramatically, dramatic culling becomes likely.
Since random mutations are random, most will confer a disadvantage, and only some will confer an advantage. With too much random mutation going on you'd get too many disadvantageous changes. With too few random mutations you'd get too little adaptation. You need some rate between the extremes.
The Crusades never occurred, that's a fabrication by the devil. That's obvious if you consider that the Crusades were evil. Of course Christianity isn't evil.
The witch hunts were evil too, so obviously they are fabrications by the devil too. As are the evil passages in the Bible.
Mutations that in earlier times were fatal are now viable. They may now lead to offspring. So these mutations will live on more than before. We have more mutations surviving and spreading, we have more diversity, not less.
Among this diversity, a few will be a leap ahead. Just like we can have a mental genius with a physical disability, who could not survive in an earlier age but can survive today, similarly we can have evolutionary changes that are in some way a leap forward but come combined with disability, able to survive today. Later recombinations through procreation might keep the leap forward while overcoming the disability.
The probability is of course low, but that's the case with all evolution through random mutations. You need long time spans.
With a greater diversity we should have faster evolution.
Indeed my generalizations were stupid. So much so that the next morning I woke up remembering them and feeling embarrassed.
I really should be able to avoid such generalizations, because it annoys me when people talk about Europe as if our fringe oddballs were our mainstream. And yet I make similarly meaningless generalizations myself occasionally, when I'm tired and annoyed. When I'm in that state there's something strangely tempting in striking out in blunt, wide-sweeping strokes without much thought.
Sorry.
So this isn't even the first time I've done it. Maybe I have that gene that prevents you from learning from mistakes.
Wow, I brought this back to the topic of the article! I did not expect that!
And on the contrary, I encourage others to complain about America's ill conceived foreign policy, especially when it is directly adversely affecting the complainant. This makes me realize that perhaps I've listened to a vociferous fringe and assumed that it was widespread. Why is it so easy to get tricked by such impressions?
This probably means that I should be more forgiving of those who are tricked to see Europe's fringe as mainstream.
However, I don't understand the notion that I cannot lay blame upon the individuals committing the atrocities. I didn't intend it to go that far. Of course the individuals should be held individually responsible, and hated, brought to justice and so on as deserved. It's just that sometimes I get the impression that they get smeared regardless who they are and what they do, that they are perpetually damned if they do and damned if they don't, out of a sweepingly general disdain for anyone working in politics.
And it looks like a saint would be smeared far worse than somebody evil.
But maybe I'm just looking at a fringe.
I'm American after all, hating is what I do best. Not even in my most sweepingly generalizing mood combined with anger do I see Americans that way.
In fact there are lots of things I love about the US and its people. There's a kind of brotherhood between our continents.
The thing is, you bash a brother far more than a stranger.
In fact, I love you very much. What a heart-warming compliment! I love feeling loved!
Don't listen to him. He's just a troll trying to disrupt our/. discussion. Whatever you do, don't encourage him, because then he might start doing even more disruptive things, like bringing facts into the discussion.
FTA, surprising information that slashdotters need to know:
In the 2000 election, Al Gore [...] was derided by opponents who claimed that he had said he "created" the Internet. But many of the scientists, engineers and technology executives who gathered here to celebrate the Web's birth say he played a crucial role in its development, and they expressed bitterness that his vision had been so discredited.
Gore had been instrumental in introducing legislation, beginning in 1988, to finance what he originally called a "national data highway."
[...]
"He is a hero in this field," said Lawrence H. Landweber, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin who in 1980 made the pioneering decision to use the basic TCP/IP Internet protocol Looks like we have to update our Al Gore jokes.
Locate your nearest sperm bank, and donate as much as you can. The world needs people with above average IQ's to breed. Uh... Ummm... kay. But, er, uh, r u sure? But if u say so... Kay, so, um, how do I do this?
Note that the GP comment is about Gamespot, not about Consumer Report. See the comment title. Just in case you're like me and often skip the comment title.
Further, trying to get enough fellow Americans angry enough to fight for change is damn near impossible. They're all too content to stare at Britney's latest exploits on their HDTVs. It looks like this is the core of the problem. Indeed getting people to wake up and react is very difficult indeed. It's very difficult everywhere.
But it has been done before. Many times, in many countries. It should be possible. The question is how.
However, it's going to take a revolution or a miracle to get such a change in the US political system. A revolution is a nightmare. And there's a huge risk that it will be usurped by people hungering for power. Let's hope a better path than that is found before it's too late.
I'd be interested to know what lever of power they don't already control. They don't control all the media. My thought is that your compatriots might somehow be persuaded to choose and support better media, media that would work for improvements in the system. Your compatriots might be persuaded to demand more from their media.
Democracy is worth at least some vigilance.
honors the constitution with glowing phrases and a one finger salute. It almost makes me cry.
Who exactly are the "authorities" that the ministers are forbidden to direct?
Could it be....bureaucrats? Details in my comment 21627657.
I hardly see how taking power out of the hands of corrupt (but elected) officials, and putting into the hands of corrupt (but unelected) bureaucrats is a good thing. I doubt that you elect each and every bureaucrat individually. Most will be employees who answer to some elected person above them in the chain of command. Similarly ours answer to our local elected politicians.
The important thing is that the media should be watching every step they take, and that, when a party misbehaves, there should be another ideologically similar party that you can vote for instead, so that parties can easily lose a lot of influence if they misbehave.
Yes, it's a parliamentary system. I use the word government for the ministers, and, more loosely, also the organization around them (a lot of secretaries and so on).
These ministers are appointed by the parliament. Indeed as you say the parliament can dissolve the government. But in Sweden this is extremely unusual, except of course in the standard procedure after elections. It's a step that is not taken lightly.
There are a large number of different authorities. Each authority is a beaurocratic organization. Examples are the police, tax collection, social security, and so on and on and on. They are not democratically elected, but those authorities that have power over the citizenry are local and are answerable to local politicians at the municipality level. These politicians are of course democratically elected.
They are also answerable to the courts, in the sense that any decision that the authorities make regarding a citizen can be challenged in a court of law. Whenever an authority decision is communicated, it always includes a written description of the procedure for challenging the decision. (Except where it's impractical, for instance if a cop orders you to move aside.)
I think the national government decides about the nationwide organizational structure of authorities, and about creating them and shutting them down.
But you won't see nearly the number of Americans on Slashdot blathering about how backward the European system is. Nor did I do that. I get the impression that it takes an American to take offense at this kind of debate and exchange of opinions. Americans get all touchy and sensitive and talk about anti-Americanism. You won't see nearly the number of Europeans on Slashdot blathering about anti-Europism.
I have legitimate reasons to be concerned, because your system makes you start wars in Europe's backyard, and in other ways exacerbate the terrorism problem. Questioning authority is legitimate. People with a truly democratic mindset accept that authority gets discussed and debated. Only an authoritarian mindset demands that you bow down in silence.
It has nothing to do with backwardness. I neither thought nor expressed anything like that.
Some of the things you mention are inherent in the representative democracy as such, and won't be much affected by better media. For instance, you do elect based on overall performance, and can't punish individual details like greedy salaries alone.
Representative democracy has many inherent flaws and weaknesses. I'm not suggesting that better media would remove those problems.
But as I see it your system has other problems, not inherent in representative democracy as such.
The unhealthy interests of the media corporations that you mention are a tremendous problem. You'd need serious change, and citizens willing to support media that would debate this need for change in a serious and thoughtful way.
To mention one example, for the citizens to be able to punish greedy politicians, you'd need a system where there are many strong parties, so that when one party misbehaves, every citizen could find another ideologically close party that he could vote for instead. Only then does a party that misbehaves risk significant loss.
Such losses happen often in Swedish elections, with voters going to a close neighboring party. Our many parties are keenly aware of this risk, and the media like to emphasize this risk to dramatize the reporting. Thus our system encourages the media to emphasize this.
But for all practical purposes your system guarantees two-party perpetuation. Of course a change away from the two parties is theoretically possible, but it's so difficult that this has no practical significance. You'd need media willing to seriously discuss alternatives that give voters more parties to choose from. And, more importantly, you'd need citizens willing to carefully choose and support such media.
This is indeed very difficult. You'd need to somehow get citizens interested in change, and interested in supporting media that look for change. A tall order indeed.
But nothing is easy when it comes to defending freedom and democracy. It's never been easy. But with sufficient effort and time, this should be possible. Think long perspective, effort and patience.
But we can't do that; only the politicians can. If you wait for the politicians to do it you're doomed. They have no incentive for that. It's not in their self-interest. You'd need a whole bunch of Mahatma Gandhis in all the decisive positions, and you can't expect that. So don't wait for the politicians. It just won't ever happen.
You need a different solution. No, I don't know exactly how to get from here to that solution. But I'm quite sure that getting that to work is far easier and far more likely than getting the politicians to change the system.
The citizens themselves, outside this collusion, could solve this problem, by carefully choosing media that defend democracy, by guarding the guardians. The citizens could demand from the media that they perform this task with great care.
One very unfortunate part of the US system is the widespread belief that institutional checks and balances make sense and are sufficient. If instead you saw the media as crucial, you'd demand more from your media, and your media would see this as a selling argument.
One of the best systems for checks and balances is the press, the media, checking on the politicians and reporting to the people. Of course this requires that a large proportion of the citizens be active, carefully choosing media that play this role faithfully, demanding that they do it well.
Sounds like you should despise your corrupting system, far more than the individuals who act within it. What else can you expect with such a strongly corrupting system?
Direct democracy is unfortunately no solution. With that system only people who have lots of leisure time get a say. People who work very hard and are always tired don't have energy, and therefore don't get a say.
You trust your politicians? Of course not. Quite the contrary. For instance here in Sweden there have recently been several scandals with politicians not paying their taxes. We expect them to be selfish, and adapt our systems in such ways that their selfishness will work in our interest.
For example, here in Sweden the members of the government, the ministers, have no right to give orders to authorities. Ministers decide about policy, and are expressly forbidden from meddling in the day-to-day matters of the authorities. That's to limit the influence of the power-hungry. The only exception is when an authority asks for a policy decision, and also some exceptional authorities such as the one that manages embassies and foreign affairs.
This arrangement complicated matters a lot when a Swede was released from Guantanamo. The US demanded guarantees from the Swedish government that he would be supervised. Since the government is expressly forbidden from giving any such orders they couldn't give any such guarantees.
It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not?
But if we disregard that factor, and just assume that there is food enough, what you say is indeed true, lots of people would die. For a simple example, consider the number of people who become almost blind without glasses but have essentially no handicap at all as long as they can buy suitable glasses.
We now adapt to the world that we live in today. If that world changes dramatically, dramatic culling becomes likely.
Since random mutations are random, most will confer a disadvantage, and only some will confer an advantage. With too much random mutation going on you'd get too many disadvantageous changes. With too few random mutations you'd get too little adaptation. You need some rate between the extremes.
The Crusades never occurred, that's a fabrication by the devil. That's obvious if you consider that the Crusades were evil. Of course Christianity isn't evil.
The witch hunts were evil too, so obviously they are fabrications by the devil too. As are the evil passages in the Bible.
Of course there is. Just think how slowly the horse buggy evolved and how fast modern car models appear.
There's always a car analogy.
This does not make evolution slower.
Mutations that in earlier times were fatal are now viable. They may now lead to offspring. So these mutations will live on more than before. We have more mutations surviving and spreading, we have more diversity, not less.
Among this diversity, a few will be a leap ahead. Just like we can have a mental genius with a physical disability, who could not survive in an earlier age but can survive today, similarly we can have evolutionary changes that are in some way a leap forward but come combined with disability, able to survive today. Later recombinations through procreation might keep the leap forward while overcoming the disability.
The probability is of course low, but that's the case with all evolution through random mutations. You need long time spans.
With a greater diversity we should have faster evolution.
*BSD and Linux are both great. If you want very easy install, try PC-BSD. Very nice.
I really should be able to avoid such generalizations, because it annoys me when people talk about Europe as if our fringe oddballs were our mainstream. And yet I make similarly meaningless generalizations myself occasionally, when I'm tired and annoyed. When I'm in that state there's something strangely tempting in striking out in blunt, wide-sweeping strokes without much thought.
Sorry.
So this isn't even the first time I've done it. Maybe I have that gene that prevents you from learning from mistakes.
Wow, I brought this back to the topic of the article! I did not expect that! And on the contrary, I encourage others to complain about America's ill conceived foreign policy, especially when it is directly adversely affecting the complainant. This makes me realize that perhaps I've listened to a vociferous fringe and assumed that it was widespread. Why is it so easy to get tricked by such impressions?
This probably means that I should be more forgiving of those who are tricked to see Europe's fringe as mainstream. However, I don't understand the notion that I cannot lay blame upon the individuals committing the atrocities. I didn't intend it to go that far. Of course the individuals should be held individually responsible, and hated, brought to justice and so on as deserved. It's just that sometimes I get the impression that they get smeared regardless who they are and what they do, that they are perpetually damned if they do and damned if they don't, out of a sweepingly general disdain for anyone working in politics.
And it looks like a saint would be smeared far worse than somebody evil.
But maybe I'm just looking at a fringe. I'm American after all, hating is what I do best. Not even in my most sweepingly generalizing mood combined with anger do I see Americans that way.
In fact there are lots of things I love about the US and its people. There's a kind of brotherhood between our continents.
The thing is, you bash a brother far more than a stranger. In fact, I love you very much. What a heart-warming compliment! I love feeling loved!
Don't listen to him. He's just a troll trying to disrupt our /. discussion. Whatever you do, don't encourage him, because then he might start doing even more disruptive things, like bringing facts into the discussion.
It seems we have to update our Al Gore jokes. Apparently he did play a crucial role!
Gore had been instrumental in introducing legislation, beginning in 1988, to finance what he originally called a "national data highway."
[...]
"He is a hero in this field," said Lawrence H. Landweber, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin who in 1980 made the pioneering decision to use the basic TCP/IP Internet protocol Looks like we have to update our Al Gore jokes.
Note that the GP comment is about Gamespot, not about Consumer Report. See the comment title. Just in case you're like me and often skip the comment title.
But it has been done before. Many times, in many countries. It should be possible. The question is how. However, it's going to take a revolution or a miracle to get such a change in the US political system. A revolution is a nightmare. And there's a huge risk that it will be usurped by people hungering for power. Let's hope a better path than that is found before it's too late.
Democracy is worth at least some vigilance. honors the constitution with glowing phrases and a one finger salute. It almost makes me cry.
Could it be....bureaucrats? Details in my comment 21627657. I hardly see how taking power out of the hands of corrupt (but elected) officials, and putting into the hands of corrupt (but unelected) bureaucrats is a good thing. I doubt that you elect each and every bureaucrat individually. Most will be employees who answer to some elected person above them in the chain of command. Similarly ours answer to our local elected politicians.
The important thing is that the media should be watching every step they take, and that, when a party misbehaves, there should be another ideologically similar party that you can vote for instead, so that parties can easily lose a lot of influence if they misbehave.
These ministers are appointed by the parliament. Indeed as you say the parliament can dissolve the government. But in Sweden this is extremely unusual, except of course in the standard procedure after elections. It's a step that is not taken lightly.
There are a large number of different authorities. Each authority is a beaurocratic organization. Examples are the police, tax collection, social security, and so on and on and on. They are not democratically elected, but those authorities that have power over the citizenry are local and are answerable to local politicians at the municipality level. These politicians are of course democratically elected.
They are also answerable to the courts, in the sense that any decision that the authorities make regarding a citizen can be challenged in a court of law. Whenever an authority decision is communicated, it always includes a written description of the procedure for challenging the decision. (Except where it's impractical, for instance if a cop orders you to move aside.)
I think the national government decides about the nationwide organizational structure of authorities, and about creating them and shutting them down. But you won't see nearly the number of Americans on Slashdot blathering about how backward the European system is. Nor did I do that. I get the impression that it takes an American to take offense at this kind of debate and exchange of opinions. Americans get all touchy and sensitive and talk about anti-Americanism. You won't see nearly the number of Europeans on Slashdot blathering about anti-Europism.
I have legitimate reasons to be concerned, because your system makes you start wars in Europe's backyard, and in other ways exacerbate the terrorism problem. Questioning authority is legitimate. People with a truly democratic mindset accept that authority gets discussed and debated. Only an authoritarian mindset demands that you bow down in silence.
It has nothing to do with backwardness. I neither thought nor expressed anything like that.
Some of the things you mention are inherent in the representative democracy as such, and won't be much affected by better media. For instance, you do elect based on overall performance, and can't punish individual details like greedy salaries alone.
Representative democracy has many inherent flaws and weaknesses. I'm not suggesting that better media would remove those problems.
But as I see it your system has other problems, not inherent in representative democracy as such.
The unhealthy interests of the media corporations that you mention are a tremendous problem. You'd need serious change, and citizens willing to support media that would debate this need for change in a serious and thoughtful way.
To mention one example, for the citizens to be able to punish greedy politicians, you'd need a system where there are many strong parties, so that when one party misbehaves, every citizen could find another ideologically close party that he could vote for instead. Only then does a party that misbehaves risk significant loss.
Such losses happen often in Swedish elections, with voters going to a close neighboring party. Our many parties are keenly aware of this risk, and the media like to emphasize this risk to dramatize the reporting. Thus our system encourages the media to emphasize this.
But for all practical purposes your system guarantees two-party perpetuation. Of course a change away from the two parties is theoretically possible, but it's so difficult that this has no practical significance. You'd need media willing to seriously discuss alternatives that give voters more parties to choose from. And, more importantly, you'd need citizens willing to carefully choose and support such media.
This is indeed very difficult. You'd need to somehow get citizens interested in change, and interested in supporting media that look for change. A tall order indeed.
But freedom and democracy was never easy.
Indeed that is a very, very difficult problem.
But nothing is easy when it comes to defending freedom and democracy. It's never been easy. But with sufficient effort and time, this should be possible. Think long perspective, effort and patience.
It's worth it.
You need a different solution. No, I don't know exactly how to get from here to that solution. But I'm quite sure that getting that to work is far easier and far more likely than getting the politicians to change the system.
The citizens themselves, outside this collusion, could solve this problem, by carefully choosing media that defend democracy, by guarding the guardians. The citizens could demand from the media that they perform this task with great care.
One very unfortunate part of the US system is the widespread belief that institutional checks and balances make sense and are sufficient. If instead you saw the media as crucial, you'd demand more from your media, and your media would see this as a selling argument.
One of the best systems for checks and balances is the press, the media, checking on the politicians and reporting to the people. Of course this requires that a large proportion of the citizens be active, carefully choosing media that play this role faithfully, demanding that they do it well.
Sounds like you should despise your corrupting system, far more than the individuals who act within it. What else can you expect with such a strongly corrupting system?
Direct democracy is unfortunately no solution. With that system only people who have lots of leisure time get a say. People who work very hard and are always tired don't have energy, and therefore don't get a say.
For example, here in Sweden the members of the government, the ministers, have no right to give orders to authorities. Ministers decide about policy, and are expressly forbidden from meddling in the day-to-day matters of the authorities. That's to limit the influence of the power-hungry. The only exception is when an authority asks for a policy decision, and also some exceptional authorities such as the one that manages embassies and foreign affairs.
This arrangement complicated matters a lot when a Swede was released from Guantanamo. The US demanded guarantees from the Swedish government that he would be supervised. Since the government is expressly forbidden from giving any such orders they couldn't give any such guarantees.
It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.