From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 9:31:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B1437B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF18B43E6A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81GV5143577; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:31:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011631.g81GV5143577@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:31:00 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone > acts as you would have them act? By what system? Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they do as a first priority? >> > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights >> > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as >> > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must >> > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. >> >> I claim you can't know that yardstick. > > Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive > approximation, Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do more harm than good. > and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to > using it instead. It's not -my- responsibility to do -your- duty. ;) >> It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to >> demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to >> be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. > > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve > homeostasis. IYHO. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message