I have a script called `listener` to start SBCL with CLIM Listener, Swank waiting for Emacs connections and linedit interface wrapped for the console (I start it usually in tmux). #lisp
Santa Claus present for my mom ;-) #development
Thoughts on Universal Basic Income.
Twice in my life I have been able to take time out, re-educate and move in a completely different direction. Same for my better half.
We were only able to do this with support from our families and from each other.
How great would it be if everybody got that chance, without worrying about starving, becoming homeless or losing access to civic society?
@temporal The only difference is that when bee colony dies it doesn't take whole planet with it ;-)
↑ This is a joke, no need to comment on it.
I think that the gist of our disagreement is that I think that human race is part of the nature as something bigger while you believe we are the owners of it.
In some ways societies are dumber, but they are very good at exploiting the value, so *it is* more "powerful" intelligence if we take that what people do is intelligent.
We just postpone death and starvation at expense of our environment, it is just prolonged resource exhaustion. It is a bit of a stretch to call it difference
Because pieces of ecosystem depend on each other. So in this cycle (which you assumed people got away from) is from the broader perspective cooperation (disguised as competition).
Wrt. Schelling – that's exactly my point. There always is a risk that there is a bigger picture you do not comprehend, and given that, bigger dominance you gain more you can screw yourself over. That would be a case for self-restraint and attempts of cooperation even if exploitation is possible.
Also I did not say that humans need to go. I said: humans need to change and adapt, self-restrain themselves for sake of their own civilization and other living beings (which are experiencing universe too, it is not that we are sole observers). Seeing point of universe and nature in human perception is very egocentric (however maybe it could be justified as natural for beings revolving around concept of ego).
I think that most of the nature exhibits "camouflaged" cooperation.
/humans have perspective/ -- what kind of perspective? historical? intellectual? Or is it that the brain mass is all that counts?
Intelligence is not binary, even simpliest organisms has some sort of intelligence: go to sugar, escape from toxin, dogs comprehend feelings etc. So it is more a continuum than a latch: here we are, pinnacle of evolution.
Notice how societies exhibit more intelligent behavior (and detached from its human-cells) than individuals.
n.b: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%E2%80%93fungus_mutualism, farming requires something what could be called a "restraint" in human terms. Of course it is not that an ant itches to eat all fungus but restrains itself.
Regarding Schelling, what I meant that he perceived conflict of interest as something where you either win or lose (i.e didn't take into account that losing may be an optimal behavior from the broader perspective and bargaining may doom you in long term – we dance around a cliff and we both fall because we are such good negotiators, or we postpone it until animal comes and eats us). I've linked "Global warming" section because this (imo) is an illustration where his model fails.
You imply that coordination may be only a result of intention. Evolution (as a law) counters this: we have many "intelligent behaviors" which are a result of "unintelligent actions". When some population of animal does not self-restrain itself it may lead to its doom, hence this behavior is not carried to next generation, so agnostic behaviors are limited to "sane agnostic behaviors".
To scale up the metaphor in change: it may be that only "non-exploting" parallel earths will survive ;-)
And getting back to the beginning - some people concerned about prolonging life have valid points despite quite convincing explanation in the post why they do not have valid points (because that response is based on assumptions which may be put in question).
In term of "conflicts" it is sometimes better to lose with the "opponet" with whom you could win if the common goal is reached (so instead of bargaining just face the problem).
whops, forgot to mention ^_^
Another way to put it: is life a zero-sum game where the strongest takes all (and possibly dies because of its limited perception), or maybe some kind of self-restrain and altruism exists. Knowing that we can't know everything we may suspect, that not "taking it all, because we can" may be profitable in longer term, so in terms of evolution altruism may be valid strategy.
* altruism towards the nature, or "resources" as some may put it – at a cost of immediate gain of exploiting it.
Admittedly I have more questions than answers but I'm far from taking growth as a granted good.
Speaking of cancer cells: I like this analogy a lot. It is a scaled down approach of how "civilization" ends when its growth is not checked and resources are finite.
Also it illustrates a dillema: what gives them cancer cells a right to destroy human body? We may of course accept it as natural behavior of living beings, but we have different models: i.e symbiosis. What do we want to be as people?
Prosperity is correlated with reduced population growth. Not necessarily causes it (i.e both may be caused by the fact that people are more busy with work).
Maybe word resources is a little misleading: why do we think we may exploit them at the cost of other living beings (or even within human race: part of the population at cost of the rest)?
As of dynamic: do you really think we did break out of them? Are we not lions who are eating all the gazelles to find themselves starving?
humble me ;-)
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!