Re: [Sheflug] OT: Human nature, capitalism, socialism and Naomi Klein (was Re: RMS Talk)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy Baldwin <csyteb [at] comp.leeds.ac.uk> writes:

    Timothy> Russia Oct 1917 - approx 1920: This did indeed happen.

Yeah, but the history books I've read indicate that it was a standard
issue power struggle among the elite of the movement, and have little
to do with democracy, or even the actual interests of the workers the
"revolutionary vanguard" pretended to be working for.

    Timothy> If personality was indeed tightly controlled by instinct
    Timothy> then a stratergy of cooperating with people who
    Timothy> cooperate, as has been demonstrated by various computer
    Timothy> simulations.

Um, no.  What the computer simulations (starting with Robert Axelrod,
_The Evolution of Cooperation_) demonstrated is that in the presence
of extremely restricted information processing facilities, with a
"greedy algorithm" (survival of the fittest) driving "evolution",
non-cooperative "tit-for-tat" type strategies do very well (in species
survival terms) in a broad range of environments (ie, distributions of
"species" of strategy in the population).

These are _not_ cooperative strategies, or personalities, however.
The (period by period) actions chosen are cooperative (in the sense
that it is "win-win"), but the strategies themselves are extremely
"capitalist" (more precisely, trade-oriented).  "Mutual
backscratching", if you prefer.

Truly cooperative strategies die out very very quickly.

Properly interpreted, these results are strong evidence for the
free-trade, globalization is good end of the political spectrum.

My heart is with you, Tim, but my head says that the only way to make
poor people rich is through capitalism.  Not all of them, of course,
but more of them and all richer than under the competing systems.  And
many will suffer somewhat more than absolutely necessary in the short
run, especially the less adaptable ones.

    Timothy> However this would not allow for the existence of
    Timothy> capitalism, or that of Bill Gates, therefore one must
    Timothy> conclude that personality is not genetically
    Timothy> determined. At least 2 books have been written in support
    Timothy> of this argument.

Huh.  "Two."  You're easily off by two orders of magnitude.  More
likely three.  Nature vs. Nurture goes back way before Aristotle.

>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will [at] misconception.org.uk> writes:

    Will> So basically you think the best idea is to use a system that
    Will> has only been tried in one country for a period of 3 years.

Bravo!  Well played!
 
    Will> I'm sure Bill Gates is as good a man as you or I,

Highly unlikely.  You realize that Bill Gates bought the rights to DOS
from a man who considered him to be a friend for about $20,000,
knowing that (a) IBM was going to pay him a lot more up front and (b)
that IBM didn't realize what it was giving away in allowing Gates to
own the software?

I'm sorry, I couldn't abuse someone's trust that way.  Not even in
business.

On the other hand, I wouldn't object to doing business with him, if he
were selling GPL'd software.  ;-)

-- 
university of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.