Because the idea that we can take care of each other a little better if we institute some safety-net programs, and the idea that workers should be able to bargain collectively for their compensation and safety and other issues - these were once progressive issues.
Whereas the idea that a feudal society is somehow good was the regressive, conservative idea.
Somehow libertarians and conservatives are trying to play the victim and turn this around, but repeatedly insisting that the basic social reforms that have made society and life more stable and freer for the majority of the population are somehow regressive and backwards will just never make it so.
Which is not to say that there isn't a conflict between social reform and social control, and that these aren't things to be watched out for. And moral impositions should be right out. But I'll take a balance of social programs and government watching over unfettered capitalism and exploitation any day.
Barry Goldwater lost. A whole slew of conservative candidates lost a lot of elections before they even got to that point, despite fervent conservative activism. Despite that, I think a lot of people would be interested in what the conservative activists of the time had to say about what they were doing. For more, try Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm.
I almost agree with your sentiments. I think they demand the following question, however:
Is there anything anyone can do about anything anywhere? If so, why not do it?
Republican "big machine" came from small roots
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you lean right [...] You have a "big machine" on your side, one constructed over decades - how could any grassroots effort put a dent in it?
Republicans (and hopeful progressives) should take note that the current Republican "machine" arose out of fervent conservative activism that has roots going back almost 60 years, to the tireless efforts of one Clarence "Pat" Manion, who utilized direct mail techniques to begin the process of uniting disparate elements of conservative citizens in the hopes of winning back their own party which had become increasingly liberal to compete with the Democrats.
Despite history's usual focus on the leftist activists of the 1960s, there was a very strong undercurrent of conservative student activism as well, resulting in the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. This failed at first, but they arguably ultimately succeeded in Reagan. Not that any of their "small government" hopes and dreams ever succeeded. They never will. But I digress.
The point here is, though, that what's happening on the left right now is almost the mirror image of what happened back then. As a progressive, I hope that, with the benefits of increased communication times and cheaper mass-communication, we can do things a little faster... but time will tell. We progressives should be in for a long, difficult process, with much failure before eventual success.
Conservatives, conversely, should be asking themselves if they're actually getting what they want from their elected officials. But that's just par for the course for partisans of both parties, isn't it?
Brilliant post - although I would modify your theme of "randomness" to diversity and the benefits it has in the face of randomness. I think you're thinking of random mutation, but random mutation is only what brings about diversity - it's the diversity itself that you want.
Dolphins could randomly mutate so that some have larger lungs and can dive deeper, but it's the diversity you would achieve by having both small-lunged and big-lunged dolphins around that would be the evolutionary benefit over time. The random future could bring about changes that would harm either small-lunged or big-lunged dolphins - you can't predict which. Better to have all traits around just in case they become useful some day.
Similar problem to the selective breeding we've done for common vegetables like tomatos - when all tomatos are the same, crops are much more susceptible to blight & other problems. Diversity of traits is the key.
Neither of you are quite right. Natural selection does not operate on individuals or families. It operates on the phenotypes of populations. A population consists of a number of individuals with a variety of traits. Traits that serve as an advantage to reproduction within the existing environment are likely to be selected for. Traits that serve as a disadvantage are likely to be selected against.
And natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. That "variety of traits" is called a gene pool, and if something happens (migration, natural disaster, continental drift) that separates a small group from the overall population, the genes available to them will differ from what was available to the whole population. Some may have been eliminated outright. As they reproduce, the offspring populations will be genetically different from the original population as a result of this. This is called genetic drift, and has nothing to do with natural selection.
Imagine if a group of people from the China manage to colonize Mars, but no one else is able to do it for quite some time. The overall population on Mars will be different from the overall population on Earth. Mars will be mostly "asian", while Earth will still have a wider diversity of genes. Of course, the Martian environment would also begin selecting for traits, so both mechanisms will be happening...
In any case, evolution is more complex than anyone here is letting on, despite being a simple concept, and the only reasons anyone would think it had stopped would be A) a misunderstanding of evolution, and/or B) because we just don't think we see it happening on the time scales in which we live.
The thing is, we can see it happening right before our eyes in the last 2-3 centuries. Previously isolated human populations all over the world are now mixing and interbreeding. Interracial marriage, anyone? This is evolution happening as we speak. The population's gene pool is changing right here, right now.
To reply to myself, in the Mongolian calculus example, a Mongolian who invents something great that makes life easier for everyone isn't necessarily a benefit to his own personal genes, but his improvement does benefit the overall gene pool by making it more diverse (more people surviving who wouldn't before) and increasing its viability and resilience into the future.
Intelligence recurs even if the person with the intelligence and education doesn't directly reproduce because intelligence benefits the overall gene pool, and the genes for intelligence are out there in the pool.
Technology enhances the long-term viability of the species that uses it. If their own technology doesn't destroy them all first... Singularity, terminator, nuclear holocaust... we'll see:P
Excellent reply, your post should be modded up. Very succinct and precise.
Although I'm slightly wary of the "intelligence is culturally defined" argument. I think there's something to it, but I also think there's something idealogical about it.
Consider, tossing you out onto the Mongolian steppe might render you an evolutionary dead-end, if you can't ride a camel and your calculus goes to no use. But consider if you are able to figure out a way to apply your calculus towards building a better hunting weapon. Or a better way of cooling water. Or something. Suddenly your calculus isn't so useless.
Still, though, this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on evolution. You might build a refridgerator or a better rifle, but if that doesn't translate into greater reproduction for you, then your intelligence has nothing to do with evolution.
Especially if inventing those things keeps you down in your parents' basement being afraid of girls your whole life!;-)
I think your embedded point that greater survival for all is better for the human species overall because it increases genetic diversity is the real insight of your post, something I've been reaching for lately but hasn't made it to the tip of my tongue. Thank you for crystallizing the idea for me.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call "bigot" on your post as well. At the very least, "does not properly understand evolution."
I'm not even going to start with the difference between "intelligent" and "educated" - and I'm not even going to get into how it's populations that evolve depending on traits in their overall gene pool.
Let's just focus, for starters, on this statement:
I believe modern evolutionary pressure (the last three hundred years) is producing more of the genes from people who have poor family planning skills and just cannot grasp or accept birth control.
Why the last three hundred years? I might possibly understand "the last hundred" (what with the industrial revolution and all). I might possibly understand saying "the last hundred" also since that's about how long we've had effective birth control technology that anyone really knew about.
But why 300? What's so special that happened 300 years ago?
Why were "unintelligent" humans unable to reproduce effectively prior to 300 years ago? Or really, at any given time? It seems to me that at any given time in human history over the past, say, at least 5000 years in western society, the mix should be about the same, since "intelligent" people desperately need "unintelligent" people to keep things going.
And despite the beginnings of modern democracy, which finally got a proper foothold on the planet - say, 300 years ago! - that situation still doesn't seem to have changed much.
Prior to the iPod you had three choices: [...] 3) MP3 players, like the Nomad or Rio with crude design and usability
Sounds to me like Apple didn't create the paradigm-shifting new social technology. They just made it easy to use. MP3 players were the new thing, and a long time coming. Everyone was trying to make them possible. Apple hit the nail on the head by making them easy to use.
That's the real thing with new technology. Whatever the next thing will be, it will have been around at least 5-10 years already, but have been real clunky and only geeks will have been interested. And then some company will take the basic function, isolate it, and make it really easy for everyone. And it'll take off.
I'd guess personal media servers, like what people wanted the Mac mini to be. It's not there yet, but every geek and his uncle is trying to make a little WinDVR/MythTV/Freevo/whatever box for the living room. It's been at tinkerer-stage for about ten years now (I'd put it as starting back with the first MP3-server attempts in the mid 90s), taking off more lately thanks to VIA's EPIA boards and chips. Outside the "build-your-own" market, people are interested, but there isn't any cheap, simple, off-the-shelf solution yet.
I think that's why people were so disappointed about Apple's Tuesday announcement. The mini has potential. Apple just isn't ready yet, if they're going to do it at all.
I think the important thing is that such a device doesn't need to have a TV tuner. Most people have one already - it's called a cable box (or satellite box). The media server take-off hit of the near future only needs to be able to take video input and play/encode/decode it with a really elegant interface. Sort of like a digital VCR that anyone can use, that will never invite the old "my VCR is still flashing 12:00" jokes. More important than that will be video downloads, be they from iTMS, Netflix, or whatever. On-demand is the future, not TV recording. Leave the DVR functions to the cable box, and make the media server do just that: serve media - and they'll have a winner.
That all sounds well and good, but does it play all the music that Joe & Jane Q Public has ripped with iTunes? No? They'd have to rip it again to something else? Then why would they want it?
Let's see how that worked out for them - oh, yeah, everyone I know laughs when they hear the term "graphic novel." It's a joke in and of itself. Good job on that one, guys - highlighting your self-conscious anxiety by acting on it.
I'd prefer it not to be thought of as a license, because a license to listen to music I've purchased is something they can reasonably take away at a later time. Licenses can be revoked. My possession of information I've purchased can't be reversed unless I screw it up somehow.
The way it should be seen is that the information itself is free, but you have to pay for access to it because there is still a cost associated with its production and distribution. For books & CDs, it's the cost of printing, duplicating, shipping, etc.
For digital music, it's the cost of digital storage media, servers, bandwidth, etc.
The way it should be is that I pay Apple for the cost of downloading the song, and once I have it, I have it, and if I want to download it again at some later date I should have to pay them for the same cost. Of course, if that were the way things were, the price for songs on iTunes Music Store would be much lower
Seriously, it's like human civilization is developing schizoid paranoia. I do not want to be alive right now. Please, can someone hurry up and perfect cryogenic technology so I can be frozen until everyone gets done with their authoritarian jonesing and the world lightens up to a reasonable level?
Well, that comment was a tad abusive of the GP comment, but still it was accurate.
The GP says: Does Apple really think their software and hardware is so perfect as to never lose data?
No, they expect their customers to be responsible for their property once obtained. If you buy a song from their store, it seems pretty obvious (if they don't say it outright, it's in the terms somewhere, and it's obvious from the interface I think) that you can't download the songs again and that you should make a backup of them.
Kinda like if you buy a CD or a chair or something else. Once you own it, it's yours: be responsible for your property. Don't expect the company who sold it to you to take care of it for you (unless of course you've made an agreement to that effect).
Does the mushroom farmer own his land? Or rent it from someone else?
Conceivably the mushroom farmer puts work into the land which increases its value.
The chef who is buying the farmer's mushrooms puts work into them which increases their value.
If the chef needs the specific mushrooms so badly, he will be willing to pay more for them.
this is where the analogy breaks down, right? Because conceivably Google and all of us are already paying for all this bandwidth. It's paid for, at it's appropriate value. If the bandwidth "landlords" suddenly think everyone should be paying more, because the bandwidth is more valuable, they should just up the fees and see what happens. I don't think they'll like the results, unless they all collude to provide no competition. At that point we all just hope we still have a shred of government left somewhere...
That's an oxy-moron. If you're actively fantasizing, you're not relaxing.
brain dead and happy
That's another one. If you're brain dead, checked out, not present, how can you be experiencing happiness? You have to remain mindful in order to be happy.
I know this is off-topic, but the increasing equating of "relaxing" with game-playing or TV-watching irks me a bit. These things engage your mind or allow you to check out entirely. They are distractions and drugs, but not true relaxation.
PRACTICING homosexuality is a choice whereas blacks or asians or latinos or whomever have no such choice.
I don't know about that. I'd check with Dave Chappelle if I were you - he practices being asian, white, etc. on his show all the time...
So anyway, your argument is that, when people can choose their skin color (bound to happen with advanced technology someday), it'll be OK to discriminate beteween people based on what color they choose?
Slashdot Mirror
Because the idea that we can take care of each other a little better if we institute some safety-net programs, and the idea that workers should be able to bargain collectively for their compensation and safety and other issues - these were once progressive issues.
Whereas the idea that a feudal society is somehow good was the regressive, conservative idea.
Somehow libertarians and conservatives are trying to play the victim and turn this around, but repeatedly insisting that the basic social reforms that have made society and life more stable and freer for the majority of the population are somehow regressive and backwards will just never make it so.
Which is not to say that there isn't a conflict between social reform and social control, and that these aren't things to be watched out for. And moral impositions should be right out. But I'll take a balance of social programs and government watching over unfettered capitalism and exploitation any day.
Barry Goldwater lost. A whole slew of conservative candidates lost a lot of elections before they even got to that point, despite fervent conservative activism. Despite that, I think a lot of people would be interested in what the conservative activists of the time had to say about what they were doing. For more, try Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm.
I almost agree with your sentiments. I think they demand the following question, however:
Is there anything anyone can do about anything anywhere? If so, why not do it?
If you lean right [...] You have a "big machine" on your side, one constructed over decades - how could any grassroots effort put a dent in it?
Republicans (and hopeful progressives) should take note that the current Republican "machine" arose out of fervent conservative activism that has roots going back almost 60 years, to the tireless efforts of one Clarence "Pat" Manion, who utilized direct mail techniques to begin the process of uniting disparate elements of conservative citizens in the hopes of winning back their own party which had become increasingly liberal to compete with the Democrats.
Despite history's usual focus on the leftist activists of the 1960s, there was a very strong undercurrent of conservative student activism as well, resulting in the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. This failed at first, but they arguably ultimately succeeded in Reagan. Not that any of their "small government" hopes and dreams ever succeeded. They never will. But I digress.
The point here is, though, that what's happening on the left right now is almost the mirror image of what happened back then. As a progressive, I hope that, with the benefits of increased communication times and cheaper mass-communication, we can do things a little faster... but time will tell. We progressives should be in for a long, difficult process, with much failure before eventual success.
Conservatives, conversely, should be asking themselves if they're actually getting what they want from their elected officials. But that's just par for the course for partisans of both parties, isn't it?
Brilliant post - although I would modify your theme of "randomness" to diversity and the benefits it has in the face of randomness. I think you're thinking of random mutation, but random mutation is only what brings about diversity - it's the diversity itself that you want.
Dolphins could randomly mutate so that some have larger lungs and can dive deeper, but it's the diversity you would achieve by having both small-lunged and big-lunged dolphins around that would be the evolutionary benefit over time. The random future could bring about changes that would harm either small-lunged or big-lunged dolphins - you can't predict which. Better to have all traits around just in case they become useful some day.
Similar problem to the selective breeding we've done for common vegetables like tomatos - when all tomatos are the same, crops are much more susceptible to blight & other problems. Diversity of traits is the key.
Neither of you are quite right. Natural selection does not operate on individuals or families. It operates on the phenotypes of populations. A population consists of a number of individuals with a variety of traits. Traits that serve as an advantage to reproduction within the existing environment are likely to be selected for. Traits that serve as a disadvantage are likely to be selected against.
And natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. That "variety of traits" is called a gene pool, and if something happens (migration, natural disaster, continental drift) that separates a small group from the overall population, the genes available to them will differ from what was available to the whole population. Some may have been eliminated outright. As they reproduce, the offspring populations will be genetically different from the original population as a result of this. This is called genetic drift, and has nothing to do with natural selection.
Imagine if a group of people from the China manage to colonize Mars, but no one else is able to do it for quite some time. The overall population on Mars will be different from the overall population on Earth. Mars will be mostly "asian", while Earth will still have a wider diversity of genes. Of course, the Martian environment would also begin selecting for traits, so both mechanisms will be happening...
In any case, evolution is more complex than anyone here is letting on, despite being a simple concept, and the only reasons anyone would think it had stopped would be A) a misunderstanding of evolution, and/or B) because we just don't think we see it happening on the time scales in which we live.
The thing is, we can see it happening right before our eyes in the last 2-3 centuries. Previously isolated human populations all over the world are now mixing and interbreeding. Interracial marriage, anyone? This is evolution happening as we speak. The population's gene pool is changing right here, right now.
To reply to myself, in the Mongolian calculus example, a Mongolian who invents something great that makes life easier for everyone isn't necessarily a benefit to his own personal genes, but his improvement does benefit the overall gene pool by making it more diverse (more people surviving who wouldn't before) and increasing its viability and resilience into the future.
:P
Intelligence recurs even if the person with the intelligence and education doesn't directly reproduce because intelligence benefits the overall gene pool, and the genes for intelligence are out there in the pool.
Technology enhances the long-term viability of the species that uses it. If their own technology doesn't destroy them all first... Singularity, terminator, nuclear holocaust... we'll see
Excellent reply, your post should be modded up. Very succinct and precise.
;-)
Although I'm slightly wary of the "intelligence is culturally defined" argument. I think there's something to it, but I also think there's something idealogical about it.
Consider, tossing you out onto the Mongolian steppe might render you an evolutionary dead-end, if you can't ride a camel and your calculus goes to no use. But consider if you are able to figure out a way to apply your calculus towards building a better hunting weapon. Or a better way of cooling water. Or something. Suddenly your calculus isn't so useless.
Still, though, this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on evolution. You might build a refridgerator or a better rifle, but if that doesn't translate into greater reproduction for you, then your intelligence has nothing to do with evolution.
Especially if inventing those things keeps you down in your parents' basement being afraid of girls your whole life!
I think your embedded point that greater survival for all is better for the human species overall because it increases genetic diversity is the real insight of your post, something I've been reaching for lately but hasn't made it to the tip of my tongue. Thank you for crystallizing the idea for me.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call "bigot" on your post as well. At the very least, "does not properly understand evolution."
I'm not even going to start with the difference between "intelligent" and "educated" - and I'm not even going to get into how it's populations that evolve depending on traits in their overall gene pool.
Let's just focus, for starters, on this statement:
I believe modern evolutionary pressure (the last three hundred years) is producing more of the genes from people who have poor family planning skills and just cannot grasp or accept birth control.
Why the last three hundred years? I might possibly understand "the last hundred" (what with the industrial revolution and all). I might possibly understand saying "the last hundred" also since that's about how long we've had effective birth control technology that anyone really knew about.
But why 300? What's so special that happened 300 years ago?
Why were "unintelligent" humans unable to reproduce effectively prior to 300 years ago? Or really, at any given time? It seems to me that at any given time in human history over the past, say, at least 5000 years in western society, the mix should be about the same, since "intelligent" people desperately need "unintelligent" people to keep things going.
And despite the beginnings of modern democracy, which finally got a proper foothold on the planet - say, 300 years ago! - that situation still doesn't seem to have changed much.
Just watch out that you don't get served!
Prior to the iPod you had three choices:
[...]
3) MP3 players, like the Nomad or Rio with crude design and usability
Sounds to me like Apple didn't create the paradigm-shifting new social technology. They just made it easy to use. MP3 players were the new thing, and a long time coming. Everyone was trying to make them possible. Apple hit the nail on the head by making them easy to use.
That's the real thing with new technology. Whatever the next thing will be, it will have been around at least 5-10 years already, but have been real clunky and only geeks will have been interested. And then some company will take the basic function, isolate it, and make it really easy for everyone. And it'll take off.
I'd guess personal media servers, like what people wanted the Mac mini to be. It's not there yet, but every geek and his uncle is trying to make a little WinDVR/MythTV/Freevo/whatever box for the living room. It's been at tinkerer-stage for about ten years now (I'd put it as starting back with the first MP3-server attempts in the mid 90s), taking off more lately thanks to VIA's EPIA boards and chips. Outside the "build-your-own" market, people are interested, but there isn't any cheap, simple, off-the-shelf solution yet.
I think that's why people were so disappointed about Apple's Tuesday announcement. The mini has potential. Apple just isn't ready yet, if they're going to do it at all.
I think the important thing is that such a device doesn't need to have a TV tuner. Most people have one already - it's called a cable box (or satellite box). The media server take-off hit of the near future only needs to be able to take video input and play/encode/decode it with a really elegant interface. Sort of like a digital VCR that anyone can use, that will never invite the old "my VCR is still flashing 12:00" jokes. More important than that will be video downloads, be they from iTMS, Netflix, or whatever. On-demand is the future, not TV recording. Leave the DVR functions to the cable box, and make the media server do just that: serve media - and they'll have a winner.
That all sounds well and good, but does it play all the music that Joe & Jane Q Public has ripped with iTunes? No? They'd have to rip it again to something else? Then why would they want it?
Whence this idea that farmers are not part of the global economy? Just where the heck do you think you get your food?
And, mind you, I'm not arguing your overall argument (or saying I agree with it), just this one silly notion.
Maybe if you'd think different it wouldn't be a problem for you.
Next thing you know you'll be castigating people for poor speeling when they refer to fcuk clothing.
Kryten, is that you? Listen, no DIY guides should be giving a human being a double polaroid!
Let's see how that worked out for them - oh, yeah, everyone I know laughs when they hear the term "graphic novel." It's a joke in and of itself. Good job on that one, guys - highlighting your self-conscious anxiety by acting on it.
I'd prefer it not to be thought of as a license, because a license to listen to music I've purchased is something they can reasonably take away at a later time. Licenses can be revoked. My possession of information I've purchased can't be reversed unless I screw it up somehow.
The way it should be seen is that the information itself is free, but you have to pay for access to it because there is still a cost associated with its production and distribution. For books & CDs, it's the cost of printing, duplicating, shipping, etc.
For digital music, it's the cost of digital storage media, servers, bandwidth, etc.
The way it should be is that I pay Apple for the cost of downloading the song, and once I have it, I have it, and if I want to download it again at some later date I should have to pay them for the same cost. Of course, if that were the way things were, the price for songs on iTunes Music Store would be much lower
Seriously, it's like human civilization is developing schizoid paranoia. I do not want to be alive right now. Please, can someone hurry up and perfect cryogenic technology so I can be frozen until everyone gets done with their authoritarian jonesing and the world lightens up to a reasonable level?
The iTunes store should've let me leech everything that was already paid for.
Perhaps for an additional bandwidth fee...
Well, that comment was a tad abusive of the GP comment, but still it was accurate.
The GP says: Does Apple really think their software and hardware is so perfect as to never lose data?
No, they expect their customers to be responsible for their property once obtained. If you buy a song from their store, it seems pretty obvious (if they don't say it outright, it's in the terms somewhere, and it's obvious from the interface I think) that you can't download the songs again and that you should make a backup of them.
Kinda like if you buy a CD or a chair or something else. Once you own it, it's yours: be responsible for your property. Don't expect the company who sold it to you to take care of it for you (unless of course you've made an agreement to that effect).
Does the mushroom farmer own his land? Or rent it from someone else?
Conceivably the mushroom farmer puts work into the land which increases its value.
The chef who is buying the farmer's mushrooms puts work into them which increases their value.
If the chef needs the specific mushrooms so badly, he will be willing to pay more for them.
this is where the analogy breaks down, right? Because conceivably Google and all of us are already paying for all this bandwidth. It's paid for, at it's appropriate value. If the bandwidth "landlords" suddenly think everyone should be paying more, because the bandwidth is more valuable, they should just up the fees and see what happens. I don't think they'll like the results, unless they all collude to provide no competition. At that point we all just hope we still have a shred of government left somewhere...
outside the mainstream
Oh, how I hate this meme. Without making comment on RMS' opinions, is there no difference between "morally right" and "mainstream"? There should be.
Heaven forbid if anyone's ethics are "outside the mainstream" when the mainstream is wrong... Wouldn't want to be different from everyone else.
And that's why I hate it. It doesn't appeal to any logic or reason, only to people's desire to be like everybody else.
fantasy relaxation
That's an oxy-moron. If you're actively fantasizing, you're not relaxing.
brain dead and happy
That's another one. If you're brain dead, checked out, not present, how can you be experiencing happiness? You have to remain mindful in order to be happy.
I know this is off-topic, but the increasing equating of "relaxing" with game-playing or TV-watching irks me a bit. These things engage your mind or allow you to check out entirely. They are distractions and drugs, but not true relaxation.
PRACTICING homosexuality is a choice whereas blacks or asians or latinos or whomever have no such choice.
I don't know about that. I'd check with Dave Chappelle if I were you - he practices being asian, white, etc. on his show all the time...
So anyway, your argument is that, when people can choose their skin color (bound to happen with advanced technology someday), it'll be OK to discriminate beteween people based on what color they choose?