The anthropic principle, evolution and economics.

[water]

Hey there, that's a huge job you've done here.

I transferred the thread to Word, read it and searched it, and it just itches me to say this, even though I'm a linguist and know next to nothing about economics:

I think the whole issue of scarcity being a myth is due to this kind of thinking:

There are things that we consider resources. A fact of reality is, that we cannot measure how much of resources is there altogether. We don't know how much petroleum is still there, neither how much iron ore, nor can we be sure about the amount of rice produced this year. If we cannot know how much of it is out there, we can neither say that there is plenty, not that there is little. In this sense, scarcity IS a myth.

How scarce something is, according to this line of thinking, depends on knowing exactly how much of it is there -- hence the example of the stranded man on an island with military food resources, counting them and calculating that he has enough for 300 years. Only that in this case, it is clear how much of it is there -- while in real world, we don't know.

What lead me to think so is this:

Originally posted by tiassa
Help me out with something, Wes ... now, let's pretend for a moment that you
crystallize your economic theory and present to the world some absolutely
genius treatise that is a great sell for people and helps humanity
understand its place in nature. Just ... just so I can get a better picture
in my head, how many bureaucrats will be quantifying the air?
/.../

Yes, it requires air to breathe. The only resource that's scarce, then, is
will. Air isn't scarce because you have to breathe; it's scarce when it's
polluted or absent

(highlights by me)

However, the point that we don't know how much of it is there and that we therefore cannot say whether there is plenty or little, is not a practical basis for a theory. We cannot build a theory on something we have no hard evidence for. It's like discussing how much brain power we use, when we don't know how much brain power we have -- it's pointless.

We can of course also build a theory insisting on scarcity being a myth as presented above. This then produces a lot of sideways though, as some of the fancy misters quoted by tiassa have shown. Anyhow, it breeds out into the most dangerous kind of idealism, IMO.

So we have to use an approach that does allow us to say something about things and to measure them somehow, hence the different approach to resources:

Originally posted by wesmorris

the scarcity of resources is more of a statement of the effort required to
process them into useful goods. a resource is scarce because it is not
readily available. you have to do something to acquire it

/.../

If there is value, scarcity is true... PERIOD. Value creates demand. Demand is dependent on supply.

Just thought I'd drop a note.

 

[wesmorris]

I think the whole issue of scarcity being a myth is due to this kind of thinking:

There are things that we consider resources. A fact of reality is, that we cannot measure how much of resources is there altogether. We don't know how much petroleum is still there, neither how much iron ore, nor can we be sure about the amount of rice produced this year. If we cannot know how much of it is out there, we can neither say that there is plenty, not that there is little. In this sense, scarcity IS a myth.

Actually I think that is the best possible take on the type of thinking that leads to "scarcity is a myth". It's actually more that T and his cronies think that they should determine what type of resources should be worthy of the title "demand" (they can pretend their argument is more than political if they can bullshit you into thinking it's framed in economics). He somehow derives by dilineating 'necessity' from 'desire' in terms of demand that scarcity is whimsical, because desire is whimsical. Desire doesn't facilitate necessity he says. Through a line of self-serving horseshit, he reasons that since he's (invalidly) concluded that desire is mythical, so it follows that since desire generates scarcity, scarcity must also be mythical.

What is ignored in this is that the statement: "Desire is mythical." Is only conditionally true. What if you desire what is necessary? Why do you think desire exists in the first place? Perhaps to motivate an individual to seek what they need? Perhaps it's yet another abstract tool for survival? Yes, it's abstract - yet it lends itself directly to our survival, like any other instinct. There is a valid point in T's argument if you change what he says. In other words, it should be noted that as civilization has succeeded, desire becomes more and more abstract in general. I would argue against this however, as I think that it is because survival is significantly more complicated (not necessariliy more difficult) and our desires follow suit.

There are a whole bunch of problems with T's attempted relevance. The foremost problem is that differentiation of types of demand does absolutely nothing to impact the validity of the concept of scarcity, as it is the result of demand of any sort. "Necessity" and "Desire" have little to do with it except that either results directly in demand. Either way, demand still exists, so scarcity is a valid concept. I guess since that problem renders his argument wholly irrelevant, listing the rest of the problems is superfluous.

 

[Tiassa]

Whatever you say, Wes

I've expended a LOT of energy attempting to explain this shit to you

You've wasted a lot of energy screaming and cussing like an angry child.

If you call that attempting to explain, well ... all you've really explained is that you're a hatemonger on the warpath. Like this, for instance:

Have you noticed, T, that I generally offer you the courtesy of addressing any point you attempt to assert, and you only pull curse words or whatever you like from my posts to support your dimensia?

Let's go to the examples?

(1) "It seems obvious to me that quantity isn't the problem. In this facet of the economy I think it mostly logistics and corruption."
(2) "Your source hates capitalism (as is easy to see from the article), which signifies to me that he is at odds with nature. IMO, there is zero merit to his argument."
(3) "Did you even read it? That statement in no way supports the idea that resources are not scarce and in fact supports the realization of the need to address the problems that leave such huge innefficiencies (like that some people starve) in the global distribution of resources. IMO, corruption and value clash are probably the two most pervasive facets of the system which kink it up."
(4) "Dude, I couldn't do more that skim it, as after reading the next few paragraphs... well, if you think there's a point in there, feel free to argue for yourself but I'm not reading that apparently propagandic trash."
(5) "I don't think any of your links support the idea that scarcity is an invalid concept."
(6) "I don't see your point. Are they two of the folks you quoted? I'd say that since none of them supported a point pertinent to the topic, (except maybe in analysis much further on in the conversation (not in the context of "resources aren't really limited", which is simply factually incorrect )) there's no point to bringing up the timeline.[/i]
(7) "Light hearted sarcasm?"
(8) "Sounds like conspiracy theory."
(9) "Are you intentionally avoiding the point?"

I'll pause here to note that as you went through with petty dismissals of points of discussion while generally failing to read properly, you would wind up with:

(10) "Your repeated appeal to authority is fallacy."

So at that point what I'm dealing with is you refusing serious considerations of a broader discussion in order to isolate points, ridiculously dismiss them all, and then complain that asking you to try giving the sources fair consideration is somehow an appeal to authority.

So what was it you said?

• "Have you noticed, T, that I generally offer you the courtesy of addressing any point you attempt to assert, and you only pull curse words or whatever you like from my posts to support your dimensia?"

Quite obviously, you're representing yourself falsely. But we know, you're not actually lying because you never lie.



Furthermore, you've refused to address a very simple issue:

Tiassa: In the meantime, I owe you an apology, Wes. It is my error that I have not until now realized that you did not wish to discuss an applicable economic theory, but rather one to remain entirely in abstraction.

Wesmorris: You owe me a number of apologies by my count, tiassa , but offering them for the wrong reasons does little to convey sincerity. I really don't believe you're at all sorry . . . . So without the merit of discussion or consideration, you deem the priciples outlined in the opening post to be wholly abstract?

Without merit of discussion or consideration? Wes, you're the one who didn't want to discuss those issues.

Additionally, I went on to clarify:

Tiassa: I focused on the word applicable, and did not give enough attention to the phrase, regardless of the details. It seems to me that where we're hanging up on scarcity is that you wish to assert a definition that operates in an abstract void while I've been insisting on considering scarcity from an applicable standpoint.

You didn't respond to that; in fact, you ended your next post with an interesting point of argument:

• "Please, explain to me how I can shuck infinite corn so I can get rich? Perhaps you should keep it to yourself and you get rich. Good for you."

As I noted then, getting rich is an artificial concept.

But, nonetheless, relatively early on you wrote:

• "Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss fundamentals of economics. I think I've come up with a generalized model that is applicable regardless of the details."

But you also argued about infinite corn:

I even pointed it out at the time:

• "Explain to me how the shucking of infinite corn is relevant."

Additionally you argued:

• "Humans demand not to die from starvation or exposure (for the most part)."

Now, aside from being two "conditions" that the generalized model should be able to work without, I'm wondering about these two conditional points of yours what their actual purpose is?

Furthermore, you're arguing "necessity in demand" in that last one.

It's an interesting list of factors in conflict:

(1) Any economic model you'd try to implement would include this foundation or it would be inherently flawed
(2) General application regardless of conditions
(3) Subjective demand
(4) Necessity in demand
(5) Differentiation in the Universe
(6) Wes' hatred

"Include This Foundation"

This was the basis of the initial questions I raised in this topic regarding the validity of that foundation. Your quick response even introduced a "condition": "humans are social creatures, which are collectively fit to survive."

You then went on and inserted yourself into my discussion with 15ofthe19 about the "present context."

15ofthe19: You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context". Sure, the universe is full of everything we need, but who cares if it's too expensive to retrieve said resources?

Tiassa: And if the present context is itself a myth?

Wesmorris: The application of the concept of "economics" can be expanded as broadly as one wishes. IMO, economics is the study of how resources are allocated and the associated interactions. I view "anything of subjective value" (edit: i just noticed that 'subjective' and 'value' are really pretty much redundant) as a resource. Are you asserting that "subjective value" is a myth?

This, of course, omits your response to 15ofthe19, which includes the following, "Note that value can only be established from a perspective - even if that of an individual bacteria."

Subjective value, "perspective" . . . .

Included in this foundation of yours is the idea that subjective value establishes the objective reality (see 1, 2) of something.

The subjective value may have a relative empirical value, but that does not translate to an objective value.

Thus: Subjective

- "value is a feature of the valuer and not of the thing being valued." (Economic subjectivism; see "subjective value" link above)
- "Subjective reality, which is based on the primacy of consciousness, leads to the search of truth by revelation, opinion, divine guidance. It is simply examining our internal mechanisms as reality and guide to reality. (See link, objective reality #2)

Versus: Objective

- "Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not." (See link, objective reality #1)
- "The basic datum behind the concept of 'objective reality' is the primacy of existence over consciousness. This is, that consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity." (See link, objective reality #2)

The issue was never one of asserting that "subjective value is a myth." That's an example of you inventing an argument in lieu of understanding what you're discussing.

Like this:

• "In the context that I've established, I don't they the term "myth" is at all applicable (unless you're asserting you don't agree that it's reasonable to be reasonable, in which case debate is rather pointless)."

In the context you've established? Fine. Why piss yourself screwing up another part of the discussion? The context you've established doesn't seem entirely relevant to the discussion I was having with 15ofthe19, which seemed largely to be about a specific context of my assertion that scarcity is a myth.

Don't agree that it's reasonable to be reasonable? Where the hell do you get that? Again, you're inventing things to argue about because you don't understand the issues you're undertaking.

The objective reality is that subjective values exist. That does not make the subjective values objective, which seems to be part of your mistake.

Your foundation bears certain obvious cracks. You might choose to say they are superficial and show how they don't weaken the foundation itself or the structure to be built atop it, but why on earth did you choose to claim they increased the strength of the foundation?

"General Application Regardless of Conditions"

As we have seen, you've assigned a number of conditions to your foundation for a model that should be applicable regardless of conditions.

One must, at some point, account for the conditions within which the model is designed to work. You seem to have at least grasped the basic idea; I may or may not owe Gendanken thanks for that--only you, Wes, would be aware of how you made the transformation.

Let's start with one of the flaws in your philosophical groundwork; matters of perspective, indeed.

How many times have I pointed to issues of desire and necessity within the idea of demand?

And yet it is only after your incoherent cussing, only after Gendanken attempted a patient untangling of our vicious rhetoric, only after the idea is explained over and over that you come around to understand that it has importance (e.g. pertinence) in this discussion--and then you attempt to annex it.

Yet in that annexation, we find you placing "conditions" on your "unconditional" model:

"Humans demand not to die from starvation or exposure (for the most part)."​

At this late stage you insert the previously-irrelevant, -political, -offensive notion onf necessity into demand?

We might look to some other conditions affecting the unconditional model:

• "With a star or a shark, there exists no demand."

I included the star because I generally agree with you. Though the process of a star consuming fuel can be construed as a supply/demand relationship, I acknowledge the lack of anything that we generally acknowledge as life about a star. I am prone to say, "stars sing," and other such things, but that's a romantic byproduct of my monism.

But therein we see a classification within economics, a condition--that economics must pertain somehow to life.

In the case of the shark, however, I must necessarily disagree. If there existed no demand (e.g. necessity), the shark would not eat at all. I agree that there is no demand in sharks inasmuch as demand equals desire, but humans are not the only things in the Universe that operate against dying. Even the spawning salmon, killing themselves with the effort, do so in order that something (e.g. species) continue living.

"humans are social creatures, which are collectively fit to survive. so really it's counterintuitive I realize, but it is the fact that they are social creatures that makes them fit, so it is not anti-social."​

I don't contest the point in and of itself, nor the portion that I have omitted.

But I do think it's a limiting condition if we're to limit the "living" considerations of economics to "humans."

Human economy is unique insofar as we do have the options of desire and luxury. We do have the option of resource creation.

But where do we draw the line on "political"? So far, the line seems nearly arbitrary; whatever appears to allow Wes the loudest, most profane misogynism seems to be where the line is drawn.

Within human relationships, the presumption that supply must necessarily trail demand is exceptionally weak. But as the discussion of the star and shark suggest, we seem to be attaching the condition to the economic theory that we're dealing with human economy. So where would you like to draw the line on what is "political"?

How many conditions should we set on the unconditional?

"Subjective Demand"

. . . when an editorial page goes out of its way to print facts that prove it completely wrong, and then claims that these statistics prove it completely right, well, that is not just bad, it's downright weird. (Al Franken°)

This passage from Franken's book comes to mind when I think of our discussion of subjective demand.

It should simply do well enough to reiterate here:

The objective reality is that subjective values exist. That does not make the subjective values objective​

"Necessity in Demand"

This point has been particularly contentious. As I pointed out above, you've come around to argue what you formerly felt was impertinent to the discussion in order to support your argument. See the Franken quote above.

"Differentiation in the Universe"

Suddenly you find in your "logical" scheme a use for recognizing reality? After all, humans generally demand to not die of starvation and exposure.

We've had much disagreement about that, so we might as well look at a basic question concerning your argument while we're at this moment:

• Would you please reconcile all these conditions you're attaching to your model that should be applicable regardless of the conditions, which furthermore allegedly represents a foundation for economic considerations without which said considerations would be erroneous or incomplete?

Take a look at your latest entry:

• "It's actually more that T and his cronies think that they should determine what type of resources should be worthy of the title "demand"

My cronies? Well, whatever you say, Wes.

In the meantime, whence comes the argument about worthiness? After all, as you note, humans generally demand to not die.

Oh, right. And air is scarce because you have to breathe.

Defining the Universe solely according to one's perception instead of allowing for what a thing is apparently somehow establishes the subjective as real.

For instance your attempted distraction about the revocation of supply and demand. What, just because you say that's what the discussion is about doesn't mean that's what it really is. Which leads nicely to ....

"Wes' Hatred"

Wes, your hatred has been problematic for a while now. It is affecting your perception, your assimilation, your performance. You complain that I'm not answering your issues, but so many of them are false and buried in your odd, misogynistic bent that you are largely unintelligible.

Just because you're coming around to argue my points as if they were your argument to begin with doesn't mean that was always your argument. Humans generally demand to not die? Answer a simple question, Wes: When did that magically become pertinent and why?

Your need to use this forum as an outlet for your hatred of women is certainly your own, but in this topic you've generally put it first in lieu of any real argument. You're devising phantoms of your own nightmares to tilt with in order to convince yourself that you're doing anything other than avoiding what could have been a perfectly interesting discussion. How the hell can I answer conflicts of your own imagination when "cunt" is the most insight you'll offer into where you're getting your ideas?

I wish you luck in your quest to invent an objective center for rational thought in the Universe. In the meantime, your fanaticism has led you to a number of errors which do make any sense of progress difficult.

For instance, what is it that you really want to discuss, Wes? An applicable theory? An abstract theory? How much you hate women? What is the point of this topic of yours that you don't really want to discuss except as a litany to your hatred?

Why do you do things like call relevant points of discussion impertinent and then wail that I'm ignoring your points? Why do you refuse to consider sources and then look back at the discussion of your refusal in order to accuse an "appeal to authority"? (e.g. "I cut and paste all of your posts in this thread that preceded my accusation that you are appealing to authority into a word file and found you'd mentioned his name "smith" 33 times. Maybe I mistook abundance for an appeal to authority." After all, you didn't know who Adam Smith was--"I don't see your point. Are they two of the folks you quoted?" Which also was an admission that you were not reading the very posts you were calling irrelevant, impertinent, &c.)

Why do you do such dishonest things, Wes? They're a severe impediment to our ability to discuss the issues you raised in your topic post.

Just because you'll say whatever hateful spew makes you feel better doesn't mean it's actually an argument.

Like I said ... it's an interesting list of factors in conflict, Wes. You need to do some serious thinking about the way you're going about this argument. Like this, from your latest:

• "Either way, demand still exists, so scarcity is a valid concept. I guess since that problem renders his argument wholly irrelevant, listing the rest of the problems is superfluous."

All that tells me is that you either don't understand the issues or you're being intentionally dishonest in your representation of the discussion. After all, I've repeatedly asked you where you're getting some of your windmills, and you're simply not answering coherently.

Tell me, Wes, can you tell the difference between these two statements?

• "'The strong survive, resources are scarce' . . . any economic model you'd try to implement would include this foundation or it would be inherently flawed."

• ". . . .demand still exists, so scarcity is a valid concept."

Maybe you should have paid attention to my posts.

At any rate ... I have cronies? Damn. I think you're getting paranoid, Wes.
_____________________

Notes:

° Franken, Al. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. New York: Dutton, 2003. (pp. 175)

 

[wesmorris]

abusing your position to alter my posts in with your highlights? fits the bill of the despicable I suppose. How about you give me a go with editing YOUR fucking posts to highlight your blatant hypocracy and inability to communicate?

that's okay. after reconsidering, I think your horseshit speaks for itself.

you should be ashamed though, for such a pathetic abuse of your limited power.

 

[Tiassa]

abusing your position to alter my posts in with your highlights?

How's that?

How about you give me a go with editing YOUR fucking posts to highlight your blatant hypocracy and inability to communicate?

What in the hell are you talking about?

you should be ashamed though, for such a pathetic abuse of your limited power.

To what power do you refer?

 

[wesmorris]

I see you've undone your deed, you despicable little liar.

 

[wesmorris]

Unless of course it was someone else with mod priveledges who went through my posts on the first page of this thread and highlighted in red, large letters some of the comments that you have cited as evidence as to my hate for you... and then quickly after my having posted a comment about it, made them disappear with nothing to show they had ever been edited.

 

[Porfiry]

If they had been edited, I would see the edit history. There is no such evidence, wesmorris. That is, unless I were the one who edited them. If you're wanting to hurl wild, paranoid accusations at me, you're welcome to do so, but be prepared for an equally wild response.

 

[goofyfish]

Additionally, gang - I was certain this forum would not need a moderator. I have rarely poked my nose in here, but see I will have to do so now. Lose the insults or this thread will be closed.

 

[Porfiry]

I almost overlooked the obvious fact that tiassa is not the moderator of this forum. He couldn't have edited your posts, wesmorris, even if he wanted to. I think an apology is in order. In fact, I insist.

 

[wesmorris]

If they had been edited, I would see the edit history. There is no such evidence, wesmorris. That is, unless I were the one who edited them. If you're wanting to hurl wild, paranoid accusations at me, you're welcome to do so, but be prepared for an equally wild response.

I have no intention of hurling wild, paranoid accusations at anyone. The fact is that as I was looking through the beginning of the thread to cite things, I saw on the first page, my word with large red letters that I'm sure I never put in there.

It was very late and I did see it, but it occured to me later, that perhaps I'd seen text that someone else had quoted an emphasized. I didn't notice at the time. I just saw my words all bloated up and made an incorrect assumption abou tit.

As I mentioned however, I wouldn't care to make more of an issue about it because I think the posts speak for themselves.

Regardless, apparently Porf says it's wrong, so it's wrong.

My bad, apparently Tiassa did not lie on this occasion.

 

[Porfiry]

Maybe you did a search: (example) http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=572566&highlight=wesmorris
*cough*

 

[wesmorris]

Yeah that's the case right there.

I'm not sure if I've ever used that tool before last night (when I finally realized how handy it might be, I generally don't notice that button up there) and obviously, I didn't realize it put the stuff in red like that. Not realizing that was the case, I made a completely invalid assumption.

Again, my bad.

 

[water]

/.../ I guess since that problem renders his argument wholly irrelevant, listing the rest of the problems is superfluous.

Yup, or in other words: Consequent relativism, in all stages of thinking, is the red carpet that welcomes one's own demise.
Both in the sense of making a theory, as well as in everyday life. Huh.

I do have one question though:

Originally posted by wesmorris:
Evolution:
"Survival of the fittest"

Economics:
"The strong survive, resources are scarce"

/.../
- those that are fit for survival, do
/.../
You set up a system, and those who best adapt to it, thrive
within it. That's what I mean by "the strong survive".

While I do agree with "those who best adapt to it, thrive
within it" and that the fittest/strongest survive best, I can't help but wonder this:

Being the fittest/strongest doesn't assure that you will survive. Bill Gates may go to a nice dinner to a restaurant, and a mafia guy comes to shoot another mafia guy, misses, and the stray bullet hits poor Bill in the heart, and he is instantly dead (heaven forbid this should ever happen). Being one of the uttermost fittest didn't help him survive.

OK, this with Bill is an exaggerated example, but I am thinking of deaths and handicaps due to things like: terrorist attacks, bank robberies, bombings, aircrashes, car accidents caused by another person, sudden impactful infectous diseases, murders by serial murders, railroad accidents, ... situations where the persons involved could not have done anything to prevent or influence them.

How to calculate these deaths and handicaps? Do these deaths and handicaps represent a statistically relevant number? If they do, how to incorporate them into the idea of survival of the fittest?
Or do yo see the terrorist acttacks, aircrashes and such as an integrated part of the system?

Shouldn't "survival of the fittest/strong" be regarded more as a trend, a motto -- rather than as an exclusionary rule?

 

[wesmorris]

Yup, or in other words: Consequent relativism, in all stages of thinking, is the red carpet that welcomes one's own demise.

I'm not sure I agree because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by consequent relativisim. Maybe you mean something like what I mention at the very end of this post?

While I do agree with "those who best adapt to it, thrive
within it" and that the fittest/strongest survive best, I can't help but wonder this:

Being the fittest/strongest doesn't assure that you will survive. Bill Gates may go to a nice dinner to a restaurant, and a mafia guy comes to shoot another mafia guy, misses, and the stray bullet hits poor Bill in the heart, and he is instantly dead (heaven forbid this should ever happen). Being one of the uttermost fittest didn't help him survive.

I think it's arguable that even a random unavoidable death can be interpreted as "unfit". I'd say if you're smashed under a cement roller, you're probably not fit to survive. The traumatic event renders you, while previously quite fit... newly unfit. Other than that, seems like systemic butterfly effect kind of stuff.

Perhaps his "fitness" was suddenly thrust into a context where he was not at all fit. What do you think? He is extremely fit to survive in an economic sense, but he couldn't take a bullet.

OK, this with Bill is an exaggerated example, but I am thinking of deaths and handicaps due to things like: terrorist attacks, bank robberies, bombings, aircrashes, car accidents caused by another person, sudden impactful infectous diseases, murders by serial murders, railroad accidents, ... situations where the persons involved could not have done anything to prevent or influence them.

Which I cram into my context assertion. I'm interested to hear what you think about that. If I'm fit to excel in math and then stumble onto an english contest, will I necessarily do well?

How to calculate these deaths and handicaps?

To model it, I'd guess you'd have to account for context and the likelihood of individuals finding themselves in one which they are not fit so succeed within.

Do these deaths and handicaps represent a statistically relevant number?

I can only guess yes. I'd think actually that all un-natural deaths would probably fall into this classification?

If they do, how to incorporate them into the idea of survival of the fittest?

Hopefully I've addressed that.

Or do yo see the terrorist acttacks, aircrashes and such as an integrated part of the system?

Definately.

Shouldn't "survival of the fittest/strong" be regarded more as a trend, a motto -- rather than as an exclusionary rule?

Well, I'd suppose that is wholly dependent on your agenda. Mine is to try to understand it from a systematic point of view, so ultimately saying "survivial of the fittest" is really more like saying "up is up". Of course I don't think it's difficult to imagine an agenda that would nullify the relevance of this perspective (though it in no way detracts from its validity in and of itself).

 

[water]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'm not sure I agree because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by consequent relativisim. Maybe you mean something like what I mention at the very end of this post?

Glad that you ask.
I was just thinking about the now popular meaning of the word 'relative' and 'relativism':
1. having a connection with, being inter-related, and receiving meaning through that,
2. not being definable per se, and therefore meaningless and unimportant.

I can see that 'relativism' and 'relative' are often used as cop-outs when it comes to defining something as having value. In that sense, "But that's relative" is used to stop a debate or make it pointless, or to go on spewing BS.
Anyhow, with that "consequent relativism being the red welcoming carpet of one's own demise" I was thinking of the meaning as in 2.
While consequent relativism as understood by 1, is actually what we are striving for!

Gosh, we need to abandon these words, they are too much burdened with connotations by now.

I think it's arguable that even a random unavoidable death can be interpreted as "unfit". I'd say if you're smashed under a cement roller, you're probably not fit to survive.

While this is technically true, I am afraid that the meaning of 'fittest' is being stretched too wide.
Does "survival of the fittest/strong" mean that those who survive and have survived ARE the fittest/strong? Does it mean that those who are *alive* now are also the fittest/strong?

While this certainly applies to animals and plants in original nature, I don't think it applies to modern human society. A bum on the street survives, a mentally challenged with IQ 50 survives, and Bill Gates survives. Are we to stretch the term "the fittest/strong" to all, from a bum to Bill Gates?!

Also, "survival of the fittest" then utlimately means that one is seen fit for survival only if he conquers death too. That's too much.

You said "You set up a system, and those who best adapt to it, thrive within it. That's what I mean by "the strong survive"."
That is questionable too: Adaptation means the system is static and independent and you are the only variable in it, tuning yourself into the system.

But if we say that a system strives to be stabile (which we do say), this also means that it will respond if changes are introduced and will try to maintain stability. If it doesn't respond to changes, it will lose stability eventually.
One person may not make a difference -- but think of the butterfly effect.
Or take the smallest social system, a family: when a new child is born, it doesn't just adapt to the family: the family adapts to the child too.


Fact is that you are not just put into the system, in order to adapt to it.
The system has produced you, you are an integrated part of it. The system cannot exist without its integrated parts, and they cannot exist without the system.

Of course, you can say that that you are making a model, objectively describing the whole situation of human economics, as seen from an outside, alien-like POV.


You stated "an entitity performs its function (seeks the subjective good)", but you also wish to see fittness in the fullest possible extent (if you get squished by a bulldozer, that renders you unfit).

There are things that are beyond human fitness, things that are beyond adaptation. No matter what you do, you cannot adapt to having a hole where your head once was.

If for a human to be regarded as fit you demand abilities that are beyond human adaptation, how do you fit in the ideas of "seeking the subjective good", "value is subjective"?

We have to see people as *acting* *individuals* at some point of the description of the system, they cannot be mere cogs in the system that occasionally get squished by it -- or the idea of "seeking the subjecitve good" has no merit.


The problem is how to define people in a manner that they are seen both as actants and as ultimately influenced by the environment.

I suggest this:
Those who interrelate and interact best with the environmetnal system X, thrive best in environmental system X.

I say both interrelate and interact, as 'interrelate' says something about the connections and relations, and 'interact' says something about actions; it seemed to me that just 'interrelate' or just 'interact' doesn't suffice.

Also, 'environment' may be understood as static or irresponsive to changes, so I rather call it 'environmental system', as this says that we are talking about a *system* with all its systemic characteristics (made of integrative elements, dynamic, ...).

The interrelations and interactions with the environmental system are made of two *unseparatable* and *equally important* sources of relation and action:

A: What the system does for the individual entity, and to the individual entity. This way we integrate all the environmental influences etc. -- what upbringing someone had, ..., if he got killed in an aircrash. Things that the entity has no control of and is not accountable for.

B: What the individual entity does and where it places itself in the system. How it acts on its integrity and how it sets its priorities. Things that the entity has control of, and is accountable for.
***

Perhaps his "fitness" was suddenly thrust into a context where he was not at all fit. What do you think? He is extremely fit to survive in an economic sense, but he couldn't take a bullet.

I think the way I presented it above explains away this kind of situations.

If I'm fit to excel in math and then stumble onto an english contest, will I necessarily do well?

No, you may not: but it also won't matter to you, because you don't consider your survival interests to be bound with contest-fit English knowledge, as you have specified by your survival priorities that math is your thing.

"How to calculate these deaths and handicaps?"
To model it, I'd guess you'd have to account for context and the likelihood of individuals finding themselves in one which they are not fit so succeed within.
"Do these deaths and handicaps represent a statistically relevant number?"
I can only guess yes. I'd think actually that all un-natural deaths would probably fall into this classification?

This is something I was afraid of. It gets too complicated. Technically, if a bum gets killed by a stray bullet, that accounts the same as if Bill Gates dies the same death. And yet, the influence they have on the system is hugely different. Bill Gates practically runs it, while that bum could hardly be less signifficant. So you can't just calculate their deaths the same way.
[Bill, know that I wish you all the best, and you too, poor man. ]

"Shouldn't "survival of the fittest/strong" be regarded more as a trend, a motto -- rather than as an exclusionary rule?"
Well, I'd suppose that is wholly dependent on your agenda. Mine is to try to understand it from a systematic point of view, so ultimately saying "survivial of the fittest" is really more like saying "up is up". Of course I don't think it's difficult to imagine an agenda that would nullify the relevance of this perspective (though it in no way detracts from its validity in and of itself).

The problem with exclusionary rules is that they force you to stretch the meaning of terms too wide. Calling something a 'tendency' or a 'trend' can be a useful solution to modify a statement and keep it meaningful.

Like, "survival of the fittest" leads to thinking that Bill Gates and the bum on the street are both fittest -- since they are alive, while hardly anyone could actually agree that we should see the bum as "fittest".

I wonder what you think and look forward to hearing from you.

 

[wesmorris]

Semantics!

HA! You totally agree with me but don't like the way I said it!

I'll try to demonstrate this evening, but right now it's disk golf baby!

(i enjoyed your post and will respond as soon as I can)

 

[gendanken]

Look what the both of you fuc....people, Wes and Tiassa did:

"Word of warning: Do not insult other members"

This in a missive from goofyfish to myself as if though I were the one being vulgar in here and not the both of you.

Never mind that I've tried dissecting the point of contention in this thread that has been the mainstay for the past couple pages.
Never mind that I've actually learned something here despite my inexperience in all things economics.
Never mind that I've been the one mediating between both camps.

Yet Gendanken gets singled out as the culprit. A sham is life.

 

[wesmorris]

LOL. He must have sent you the message intended for me, as I have obviously been insultomatic. I have intentionally enganged in as much insults towards the object of my contempt as I felt like was pertinent at the moment, and considering the utter disgust I have for that object, the insults have been obviously thick and sincere (though as fleeting as any insult).

I don't think it's a point of argument to anyone that I'm the insulting jackass in this case, however I think your history, miss gendaken... might be the source of the warning? No? Hehe.

 

[gendanken]

Wes:

however I think your history, miss gendaken... might be the source of the warning? No? Hehe.

Bah!

I'll quote me again "Nonsense- everyone loves Misogyna the Misanthrope"

Serisioulsy though, it only irks me becaue I find Goofyfish has misread.
He quoted my last post in here where I'm found saying "Pardon, but the you're a cunt, no you're a cunt, no you're a cunt dialogue something something is getting on my nerves so I'm outtie..." and perhaps misread it as me calling the both of you a cunt.

Ridiculous blather, so much guano.