Ethics — What if we just keep asking why?

[Phrak]

The Euthyphro Dilemma...

This is a false dichotomy. You are given three items: "good", "moral" and "God".
You are asked, "is good>God, or is moral>God?"

I should add that the second "horn" is an emotional plea. Not that there's anything wrong with that, only that we should recognize that the argument is no longer rational.

 

[apeiron]

You however said that the semantics of an axiom was that they are proven true beyond all reasonable doubt

Nothing like what I said. Look up Rosen's modelling relations approach some day.

 

[DanP]

Obeying ethics norms is nothing but conformity. We all know the power of conformity (Asch experiments, 1950s). We conform to normative social influences because we want to fit in, we do not want to face social rejection.

There exist mounting evidence that social rejection hurts, and it hurts much the way as physical pain. see Eisenberger, Lieberman & Williams (2003);Esienberger&Lieberman(2004).

In self discrepancy theory (Higgins 1987), the "self" is composed by 3 distinct elements:
real self (what you think you are), ought self (what the society thinks you should be), ideal self (what you think you should be). Discrepancies between real self and ought self, such as not obeying social norms, are causing anxiety. (Higgins, Bond, Klein&Strauman 1986). It is probably a defense mechanism indicating us not to persist in certain behaviors, and to alert us of the possibility of social rejection. Interestingly, discrepancies between real self and ideal self are causing sadness, not anxiety.

So what is ethics ? Social norms. Obeying ethic rules is conformity to the society.

A prediction about evolution of ethics ? They change when social norms change. Sometimes much faster than it appears. 60 years ago we would not allow a women to do something like an abortion. It was not "ethical". Today it is.

There is nothing divine in individual humans. We don't know the "good from the bad". We just conform to the hive.

 

[Kajahtava]

Nothing like what I said. Look up Rosen's modelling relations approach some day.

Fair enough, then I was mistaken.

However, at least in logic, the difference in semantics is that an axiom is just assumed true for sake of argument. And a dogma is also seen by the author as being actually true, without a proof thereof.

Of course, formalists and nihilists/scepticists do not believe that things can be true on their own without a proof thereof from other assumed truths.

 

[DanP]

In ancient Rome, for example, a meritocratic system with checks and balances at the highest levels then tumbled into tyrany. Despotism. The personal became out of balance with the social.

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic. And interestingly enough in 81 BC Sulla restored power to republic institutions, renounced his position as dictator, and proceeded to live a more or less normal life without any direct political power (save for the first year after the event, when he was elected in the office of consul ) until his death in 78 BC. He was never hunted and accused of stealing the liberty of the citizens, a conviction never sought for his many terrible crimes he did in the name of efficiency of the state.

Similar things happened with Julius Cesar several decades later. The man who single-handed destroyed the Roman republic , and set in motion a chain of events who caused the birth of the Roman Empire, was considered by many the man who saved the roman state from itself, from the inefficiency of republican offices, from the callosity of the man who where in the administrative apparatus of the republic.

Which brings me to a question. Is sometimes dictatorship necessary ? Will the citizens easily renounce the illusion of freedom and some of their rights to consolidate the state ?

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome. A shift which allowed Rome (later in tandem with Constantinople, after the state broke in Western and Eastern roman empire )to run the Mediterranean world for another 500 years. And in effect, protect civilization.

We all know what is the result of the fall of Roman Empire. Almost 800 years of plateaus (some would even say regress) in the raise of western civilization, the dark ages. In effect, the needs of social are sometimes protected by dictatorship.

 

[apeiron]

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic.

I was thinking more of the post-Caesar era, when short-serving dictators like Sulla were replaced by hereditary emperors who claimed even the status of gods.

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome.

And to the degree it worked, it would be an ethical system then. But really it seems more likely that the roman system had built up such a momentum that even weak leadership could not derail it immediately.

So there was sufficient ethics built into the fabric that it took the empire a long time to actually fall.

 

[DanP]

But really it seems more likely that the roman system had built up such a momentum that even weak leadership could not derail it immediately.

Well, the issue with this view is the fact that there where a large number of emperors who actually strengthened the Roman state. Not all where mad like some of the ones from the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Nero, Caligula for example). There seems to be an alternate of weak rules and strong rules who greatly enhanced the power of the roman state. Augustus Cesar, Hadrian, Cocceius Nerva, Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Marucs Aurelius, Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus are just several examples. Those strengthened the state power and the Roman domination in Mediterranean to unprecedented heights. The timleline between Traian and Marcus Aurelius seen maybe the greatest influence of Roman state ever.

Much Later, it was the genius of Aurelian who allowed the Roman Empire to regains strength after two decades of revolts and serious loos of territory due to breakways.

I really don't see how the momentum gained by the Republic sustained the empire for another ~500 years. Roman state seen his maximal height much later. Many of it;s emperors where extremely powerful political figures, who actively improved Rome's influence.

 

[apeiron]

I really don't see how the momentum gained by the Republic sustained the empire for another ~500 years. Roman state seen his maximal height much later. Many of it;s emperors where extremely powerful political figures, who actively improved Rome's influence.

Well, 300 years. And yes some emperors were more interested in perpetuating empire than others. But how does this bear on the argument that "ethical" is defined in practice in terms of the wider success of the social system's design?

Doesn't it bear out this point to be discussing which emperors had the greater interests of the empire at heart, which lost sight of this and pursued personal desires?

 

[DanP]

Well, 300 years. And yes some emperors were more interested in perpetuating empire than others. But how does this bear on the argument that "ethical" is defined in practice in terms of the wider success of the social system's design?

It prompts out two things:

- that what tend to see today as a tyrannical state might have been essential for civilization. We tend to see dictatorships unethical, but what if there are moments in time when they are required ?

- that many ethics norms are not universal, but they operate on a in-group / out-group basis. I am sure that many slaves in the roman empire didn't shared the ethics of their masters.

ADD: I said 500 years , since I counted Rome a big influence till it's fall in 476, despite the fact the western empire was clearly on decline.

 

[apeiron]

It prompts out two things:

- that what tend to see today as a tyrannical state might have been essential for civilization. We tend to see dictatorships unethical, but what if there are moments in time when they are required ?

- that many ethics norms are not universal, but they operate on a in-group / out-group basis. I am sure that many slaves in the roman empire didn't shared the ethics of their masters.

ADD: I said 500 years , since I counted Rome a big influence till it's fall in 476, despite the fact the western empire was clearly on decline.

If you check back, I mentioned the post-Caesar period as an example of this...

Any good scientific model of ethics would have to be able to handle despots and autocrats - they are certainly a repeating motif in human society and relatively stable (even if the despots may not last long, another one takes his place).

So I was not saying that tyrany was an unethical political system in itself for some reason. I was saying we would see ethics as reflecting what was personally, and generally, "good for the system" in some functional sense. And if tyrany is functional, then we would expect to find its global values being reflected also locally in the individual psychology.

Take another example. East Germany. A quite functional society so far as communism went. The values of the whole became reflected somewhat in the values of the part. The Stasi had a huge network of informers. So these informers would either think a) informing was good and ethical behaviour, or b) believe it was wrong and only be doing it under coercion.

The key that I have been stressing is that there is a natural dichotomy between the upper and lower levels of a hierarchical system. The higher or global scale constrains, the lower or local scale constructs.

In social system terms, we can capture this essential dichotomy in terms of competition~co-operation. And then the next step in the argument is that these "conflicting" impulses are actually synergistic if the system is designed right (if as a whole it is to persist with "stability" - or rather show resilience and adaptive learning).

Furthermore, the forces of competition and co-operation will be equilibrated over all scales of the system, from top to bottom. So look at a "good" system at any scale, the individual, the family, the group, the district, the nation, and you will find a balance between the bottom-up competitive actions and the top-down constraints on action which we mean by co-operation.

So this is a detailed framework of analysis - a systems perspective.

You may be able to say more about how this fits with the actual story of ancient Rome.

I think one of the outcomes suggested by my own analyis is that people at all levels in an ethical (ie: functional) society would hold the same values. So we don't need leaders more virtuous than their subjects, but nor do we want them to be less.

A social system in which there is such an imbalance in ethical behaviour would be building in tensions. With corrupt or otherwise "overly competitive" leaders, the only way to maintain system stability would be to increase the downward constraints. Co-operation with the system's goals would become forced rather than "freely" given. A feedback loop would be set up where the only solution to rising discontent would be increasing levels of constraint (gulags, secret police, slavery). Eventually something would have to give.

But anyway, the particular ethical system that is right for a particular social system at a particular time could be considered variable (within reason).

What could be the basis for a universal scientific measurement would be a general systems property such as a sharing of the same values from bottom to top (as this shows tensions in the system have been equilbrated, promoting long term stability).

 

[baywax]

In science, if we did that we would arrive to experience. Laws work because they make good predictions and that´s all there is to it. In Mathematics if we kept asking why we would arrive to axioms.

But what about ethics? It´s not based on axioms or experience. Then, what is it based on? If there´s nothing in the bottom then it´s just ungrounded.

If it´s based on our moral intuitions then ethics is useless because:

1) different people have different moral intuitions;

2) if ethics is based on our moral intuitions, then we don´t need ethics. We´d be better off following our moral intuitions directly instead of worrying about philosophy.

What are your thoughts on this?

Its a tough one. In some cultures they shoot a lame horse. In others they shoot and eat the lame horse. In others they put the horse out to pasture and visit it often. In others... there is no horse.

But it is the ethic that harmonizes efficiently with natural law that will stick around the longest. For example the ethic of not marrying your brother or sister. Eventually that practice is eliminated by the extinction of the family practicing it because the genetic make up of the group becomes weaker over time.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic. And interestingly enough in 81 BC Sulla restored power to republic institutions, renounced his position as dictator, and proceeded to live a more or less normal life without any direct political power (save for the first year after the event, when he was elected in the office of consul ) until his death in 78 BC. He was never hunted and accused of stealing the liberty of the citizens, a conviction never sought for his many terrible crimes he did in the name of efficiency of the state.

Similar things happened with Julius Cesar several decades later. The man who single-handed destroyed the Roman republic , and set in motion a chain of events who caused the birth of the Roman Empire, was considered by many the man who saved the roman state from itself, from the inefficiency of republican offices, from the callosity of the man who where in the administrative apparatus of the republic.

Which brings me to a question. Is sometimes dictatorship necessary ? Will the citizens easily renounce the illusion of freedom and some of their rights to consolidate the state ?

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome. A shift which allowed Rome (later in tandem with Constantinople, after the state broke in Western and Eastern roman empire )to run the Mediterranean world for another 500 years. And in effect, protect civilization.

We all know what is the result of the fall of Roman Empire. Almost 800 years of plateaus (some would even say regress) in the raise of western civilization, the dark ages. In effect, the needs of social are sometimes protected by dictatorship.

...And people love Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush... etc. People are gullible idiots who write history books.

 

[Kajahtava]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

After his death, his successors took the title of Imperator, which basically means 'commander' which was not formally a dictator title without any limit to the term, it just meant they could do whatever the **** they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

* 'On cause of the case be dealt with', I'm using the Latin text here because the genitive gerundive and ablative of means make it pretty much untranslatable.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

After his death, his successors took the title of Imperator, which basically means 'commander' which was not formally a dictator title without any limit to the term, it just meant they could do whatever the **** they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

* 'On cause of the case be dealt with', I'm using the Latin text here because the genitive gerundive and ablative of means make it pretty much untranslatable.

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

 

[baywax]

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

The 500,000 slaves led by Spartacus (the Thracian slave and gladiator who led a revolt against Rome in 73, but eventually was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified) certainly would beg to differ with regard to the efficiency of the Roman Empire or its Republic.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The 500,000 slaves led by Spartacus (the Thracian slave and gladiator who led a revolt against Rome in 73, but eventually was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified) certainly would beg to differ with regard to the efficiency of the Roman Empire or its Republic.

Who said it was efficient or not? That said, as they conquered a HUGE territory, invented concrete, and founded Londinium... Maybe they managed despite inefficiencies? Besides, slave labour can be highly efficient for a time, it's just morally wrong by most (and my) standards.

EDIT: Why on Earth would you feel the need to tell ANYONE who Spartacus was, given the fame of the movie? Even a teenager should know who he was, and what he did if not in such detail.

 

[Kajahtava]

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I didn't, I just looked at a Latin text one day and was like 'Wow, I can read this.', a couple of months later I began to spot grammatical errors. Now it's become my life's mission to correct metal bands on their dubious grammar. AD MAJOREM SATHANAS GLORIAM, ahahah. AD LVX TENEBRAE.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

Well yeah, he was a populist. But I'm just explaining the position of dictator and that the other's didn't cease it. And that he just was dictator, but then till death.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

Sure, he was popular and had loyal men, he's credited as a brilliant strategic mind.

However, the one thing that always goes wrong with this, even if you have a theoretical benevolent leader, is that sooner or later, that leader will die, and then you have a power vacuum that some one, oftenso less benevolent, will jump into.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I didn't, I just looked at a Latin text one day and was like 'Wow, I can read this.', a couple of months later I began to spot grammatical errors. Now it's become my life's mission to correct metal bands on their dubious grammar. AD MAJOREM SATHANAS GLORIAM, ahahah. AD LVX TENEBRAE.

Well yeah, he was a populist. But I'm just explaining the position of dictator and that the other's didn't cease it. And that he just was dictator, but then till death.

Sure, he was popular and had loyal men, he's credited as a brilliant strategic mind.

However, the one thing that always goes wrong with this, even if you have a theoretical benevolent leader, is that sooner or later, that leader will die, and then you have a power vacuum that some one, oftenso less benevolent, will jump into.

Oh yeah... that last point especially is right on the money. Caligula springs to mind *wince*.

 

[DanP]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

You should pay a little more attention to what happened in fact during the Sulla / Marius civil war, and carefully consider if anyone "choose" Sulla for dictatorship. Whatever you have read on internet offered only a cursory glance on the period. You should study it thoroughly.

 

[DanP]

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

This is more or less what Sulla did. At the height at his power, the Senate couldn't grant/refuse him anything. In fact ,after he won the civil war, nobody in the republic was in the position to refuse him anything. His political opponents where mostly destroyed during the civil war and what was left of them labeled "enemy of the sate" and executed soon after. Conservative estimates say he killed ~1500 persons from the senator and equites classes to consolidate his rule.

Another fact is that his dictatorship was with no time limits.

 

[Frame Dragger]

This is more or less what Sulla did. At the height at his power, the Senate couldn't grant/refuse him anything. In fact ,after he won the civil war, nobody in the republic was in the position to refuse him anything. His political opponents where mostly destroyed during the civil war and what was left of them labeled "enemy of the sate" and executed soon after. Conservative estimates say he killed ~1500 persons from the senator and equities classes to consolidate his rule.

Another fact is that his dictatorship was with no time limits.

Yep, this is the pattern we see again and again, in Rome and elsewhere. Look at the Akkadian "kings" and such! It may have looked nice, and there may have been less stercore in the streets of Rome, but politics = UGLY. Power will always draw people, and ESPECIALLY psychopaths.

 

[Kajahtava]

Oh yeah... that last point especially is right on the money. Caligula springs to mind *wince*.

Yeah, what would've happened if Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon?

There's apparently a tragedy series that takes place in an alternate history where England was never invaded by the Roman Empire, sort of 1984-ish apparently.

Spoiler

You have The Holy Empire of Britannica (which is seated in the US after England was lost to the Euro Universe in war), protagonist being some prince therein that hates his father and strives to take his father's empire down but as the story progresses becomes more and more tempted by the power he acquired to bring down Britannia. Never seen it though, but it's called Code Geass, like it up.

You should pay a little more attention to what happened in fact during the Sulla / Marius civil war, and carefully consider if anyone "choose" Sulla for dictatorship. Whatever you have read on internet offered only a cursory glance on the period. You should study it thoroughly.

Sure, I will if there's more.

Also, you mean to imply that there is a place where there is more information than the internet in this world?

 

[DanP]

Sure, I will if there's more.

Also, you mean to imply that there is a place where there is more information than the internet in this world?

Actually, for specific subjects yes. One of the classic works in this particular area is "Roman History" by Theodor Mommsen. For example, he devotes a whole volume, spawning ~400 pages only to the subject of origins of the military monarchy in Rome.

You will be hard pressed to find material of this quality on internet. (although you may find PDFs of many good treatises on history. Mommsen's included)

 

[Kajahtava]

Actually, for specific subjects yes. One of the classic works in this particular area is "Roman History" by Theodor Mommsen. For example, he devotes a whole volume, spawning ~400 pages only to the subject of origins of the military monarchy in Rome.

And this book does not exist on the internet? I mean.

Surely there's a means to pirate it at the least. Intellectual property != ZIENZ.

You will be hard pressed to find material of this quality on internet. (although you may find PDFs of many good treatises on history. Mommsen's included)

I see we think alike.

I praefer an XML over PDF container though because XML is more oriented towards semantics, structure and meaning, and PDF more towards layout.

 

[baywax]

Why on Earth would you feel the need to tell ANYONE who Spartacus was,

Don't get out much do ya!

 

[baywax]

Who said it was efficient or not? That said, as they conquered a HUGE territory, invented concrete, and founded Londinium... Maybe they managed despite inefficiencies? Besides, slave labour can be highly efficient for a time, it's just morally wrong by most (and my) standards.

Key word... "conquered" rather than influenced without twisting arms.

Actually the Eqyptians invented concrete,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

the Romans ripped off the idea like they ripped off all their ideas... ie: Greek architecture, sculpture. For every Roman idea there is a culture that was squashed by their armies. Sound familiar?

Founded Londinium...? I believe it was there when the Druids built their version with their name... so, just another rip off.

Managing despite inefficiencies means your thinking you're going somewhere as you walk up a slippery slope or on a tread mill.


Slave labour is slave labour... it will always end badly for all those involved.

 

[apeiron]

Intellectual property != ZIENZ.

I'm sure if you ever come to own some intellectual property, you will feel differently about its theft.

And this in a thread on ethics?

 

[DanP]

An interesting case is the case of taboos:

"Aidan and Kelly are brother and sister. They are spending the holiday in mountains with some of their friends. One evening, Aidan and Kelly decide that it would be interesting to have sex together. Both Kelly and Aidan are using contraceptive measures. They enjoy very much their experience and, if anything, the night they spent together considerably strengthened the bond between the two siblings"

Is it moral ? If you think that it's not moral , explain why.

 

[Kajahtava]

I'm sure if you ever come to own some intellectual property, you will feel differently about its theft.

Being sure without proof != ZIENZ.

I license my code under GPL and my graphics/music under CC By-Sa. In fact, I've had dealbreaker situations with labels because they refused an open licence.

Also, I have very little use for money in my life, andehonicism helps to keep your principles up you know.

Edit: Besides to call pirating a book you would have never bought just to read up some notes for a forum discussion 'theft'? No one loses here.

Also, one doesn't buy 'music' when one buys CD's, a CD does not contain music, a CD contains a formula in some accepted standard for a machine to produce music, from resources, music is sound is vibration, the machine transforms electrical energy into music accordingly that recipe.

Now, I can understand that artists are going to let you pay to visit a live concert, that's when they actually sell you music and not a recipe to make music which you also have to own a machine for that does it. Just as I understand that you have to pay to eat at McDonalds. But artists asking money for digital downloads is tantamount to McDonalds letting you pay money to download their Big Mac recipe and start complaining if you copy it from a friend who downloaded it first. Of course, a CD is still a tangible thing, so I understand that they want money for that, just as for cooking books, but if people download the contents of a cooking book, no one should complain. Especially because all the recipes in cooking books have evolved in traditions of hundreds of years. Just as music has, all music carries elements from its praedecessors. I can make some small adjustments to some recipe for a cake invented by another and cell that cake right? Why can't I do the same with music? But if I make a liberal cover, I have to pay intellectual fees. Why? Maybe because music is a big enterprise and legislative powers kneel before big corporations? Seriously, some corporations own entire species of planets because they genetically manipulated a species that mother nature already gave us. 99.9% of that plant already existed, but they own the whole species.

And this in a thread on ethics?

I consider the owning of information; intellectual property both a theoretically inconsistent model because information can be translated. And I consider the practice morally abhorrent and exploitive, unfair competition and I've yet too see any empirical evidence of it to foster creativity, we all know open source software with some minor exceptions (lulz, GIMP) outperforms proprietary software. Proprietary software just has the resources to advertise a lot and thereby trick consumers into buying crap when they can get quality for free.

Also, intellectual property is not a right, you can't sell a right, a fair trial is a right because you can't sell that to a person that doesn't have it. Intellectual property is simply a commercial good that can be sold to another party. A lot of labels, including all major labels demand the intellectual 'rights' to music from the artist before releasing it, TV networks obtain intellectual rights from creators of TV shows, publishers of comic books own rights to characters created by artists and not the artist itself. Intellectual 'rights' in this day and age no longer belong to the creative mind behind it, but to the publisher.

Also, it's hardly that bohemian to think that way, I mean, FSF, GNU, Creative Commons, Free Culture, Pirate Party all those movements, it's not like I'm the only person that considers intellectual 'rights' a dubious enterprise that for the most part works to financially aide publishers first, artists maybe a little or maybe compromises them, that remains to be seen and downright cripples the consumer. If I design a comic book and it's a smasher I can't get it published without giving up my right to the characters and the setting to that publisher, it then means I have a choice to make, I can either keep drawing the character I invented and the world won't know of it. Or I can only draw it with that publisher's permission, see it handed over to another artist later on, and it'll get published as a compromise.

An interesting case is the case of taboos:

"Aidan and Kelly are brother and sister. They are spending the holiday in mountains with some of their friends. One evening, Aidan and Kelly decide that it would be interesting to have sex together. Both Kelly and Aidan are using contraceptive measures. They enjoy very much their experience and, if anything, the night they spent together considerably strengthened the bond between the two siblings"

Is it moral ? If you think that it's not moral , explain why.

I have nothing against it, in fact I think taboo relationships are oftentimes cute.

Girl older than the boy, incest, paederasty, polyamorie, it's cute if people are willing to break rules that serve no purpose.

 

[apeiron]

Being sure without proof != ZIENZ.

You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality.

 

[Kajahtava]

You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality.

Encore, je ne comprend pas.

I don't really get what you mean by that or how it's related to my point.

Also, it has come to my observation that you seem to have some urge to try to find an error on my posts, any comments?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Key word... "conquered" rather than influenced without twisting arms.

Actually the Eqyptians invented concrete,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

the Romans ripped off the idea like they ripped off all their ideas... ie: Greek architecture, sculpture. For every Roman idea there is a culture that was squashed by their armies. Sound familiar?

Founded Londinium...? I believe it was there when the Druids built their version with their name... so, just another rip off.

Managing despite inefficiencies means your thinking you're going somewhere as you walk up a slippery slope or on a tread mill.


Slave labour is slave labour... it will always end badly for all those involved.

Fair enough on the concrete, but the Romans made USE of it to build a city-states, aquaducts, in fact Londinium was no city when the Romans arrived. By all accounts, it was mostly forest (REAL forest) and maybe a small Celtic settlement. It isn't even known if "Londinium" was a play on the original name (often the Roman way), or purely invented. Founded in... I think 45 AD, it fell with the Roman Empire, about 500 years later.

The Druids may have had a name for it, but if so, no one is sure. I'm familiar with Latin, and proto-Saxon (circa Dream of The Rood), but the Druids predate that language, so I don't know, and academic views are split. Frankly it wasn't a major player in the Roman Empire, and when it fell, it FELL.

As for the Roman culture... I'm half Greek (first generation) so believe me I know. You're right though, I don't "get out" in the way you mean enough to have a sense of what most people know or not anymore.

Of course, they didn't really "rip it off", they did what people have done as long as we've been people; they merged, and adapted. I'm sure if the orignal Romans saw their descendants of the Roman EMPIRE and its essentially Greek Pantheon, they'd have screamed! Such is history. Then again, the Greeks "ripped it off" too, from the language (all the way back to original Canaanite and proto-Phoenician).

Does that matter? As for Slave Labour, I think you're focusing on the American story. The reality is that Greece and Rome, Egypt, and Africa, and The USA were BUILT on the backs of slaves. In Rome and Greece, a slave of course meant a range of things not implied in the USA model of slavery. Perhaps the racism in the latter was the difference, and the view of Africans as "non-people"?

Anyway, the Spartacus lost, and the Colliseum is a major tourist attraction. What do you make of that, in terms of slaves and the LONG term? I don't LIKE slavery, but it's VERY efficient. Probably, that's why it's STILL so prevalent: Outright, or sweat-shops, or Asian wage-slaves, or Americans bound by debt. Then there are the REAL slaves, being sold for sex or work, etc.

EDIT: @Apeiron: "You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality." Really? In the GENERAL Lounge? In the PHILOSOPHY section? Bull****. Either engage or leave, you're lowering the tone of the place; a difficult feat to accomplish in the Lounge.

 

[apeiron]

EDIT: @Apeiron: "You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality." Really? In the GENERAL Lounge? In the PHILOSOPHY section? Bull****. Either engage or leave, you're lowering the tone of the place; a difficult feat to accomplish in the Lounge.

This is the philosophy section as far as I'm aware. Not the rambling off-the-top of your head unsourced opinion and rant section.

 

[Frame Dragger]

This is the philosophy section as far as I'm aware. Not the rambling off-the-top of your head unsourced opinion and rant section.

It's the lounge, so really it's both. What I need is a citation for how you remove a stick from your... ah, never mind. Please, get on with your sharing deep philosophical rambl- err, thougths. To me it looked as though you were nitpicking for pages, but it must have been an illusion.

 

[apeiron]

It's the lounge, so really it's both. What I need is a citation for how you remove a stick from your... ah, never mind. Please, get on with your sharing deep philosophical rambl- err, thougths. To me it looked as though you were nitpicking for pages, but it must have been an illusion.

Fortunately this is a question where we can appeal to authority.

See forum guidelines...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294

For example...

In general, there is more legroom for speculation in philosophical discussion, but it must be in the form of a well motivated question or argument, as described above. In particular, even a 'speculative' argument should be logically consistent with well established scientific knowledge and theory.

So there was an attempt to set up productive global constraints on locally free discussion. The guidelines exist in the belief that there is a definition of functional chat.

We are now indeed discussing an example of ethics in action as I have described it. You are saying my "ethics" are out-of-line and not conducive to the persistence of the system by the standards of "a lounge". I am saying you and some others are not living up to the "ethics" of a philosophy forum.

We can both agree that either system can tolerate a certain amount of gray, of non-functional local activity, if overall the majority of activity is responsive to the system's overall purpose.

But my view of the purposes of this forum seem to be there in black and white.

Fire away...

 

[Kajahtava]

Well, to be honest apei, I get the feeling you think that I'm praetentious in some form and try to find point to tackle me on and 'expose' me, when the time arrives you will feel less than satisfactory as I will just respond with 'Hmm fair point, seems I was mistaken', and move on, it has already happened once or twice here I think.

 

[apeiron]

Well, to be honest apei, I get the feeling you think that I'm praetentious in some form and try to find point to tackle me on and 'expose' me, when the time arrives you will feel less than satisfactory as I will just respond with 'Hmm fair point, seems I was mistaken', and move on, it has already happened once or twice here I think.

My honest personal opinion - not that I think it is at all relevant to the purpose of the forum - is that I find you are interestingly different. So that would be a reason to probe a little further to find what you are actually made of.

If there is organisation behind the disorganised way you respond, then that is what I would look to expose as I am always very interested in other coherent world views.

 

[Kajahtava]

My honest personal opinion - not that I think it is at all relevant to the purpose of the forum - is that I find you are interestingly different. So that would be a reason to probe a little further to find what you are actually made of.

Ahh, I was going to post 'You seem to be at the same time intrigued and annoyed by me.', but I thought that would be bad style.

If there is organisation behind the disorganised way you respond, then that is what I would look to expose as I am always very interested in other coherent world views.

Oh well, I've noticed that people have a difficulty reading what I meant. But I also noticed that people have that from each other. People often don't seem to notice that they speak in different meanings when they use the same word, and care more for the words they use, than what meaning they have in a debate. I've seen it happening countless times that a single word has changed meaning dozens of times in one debate with neither party observing it.

Anyway, if you're interested: http://thisdomainisirrelevant.net/

 

[apeiron]

Anyway, if you're interested: http://thisdomainisirrelevant.net/

This would suggest you consider your home territory to be lambda calculus - which is indeed an organised body of ideas.

My own interest lies in clearly recognising the limits of computability (and all its allied discourses - monadism, locality, atomism, mechanicalism, determinism, information theory) and then saying, well, what is the larger story, what is the broader view of logic and causality then?

This arose because computational approaches to mind science so clearly were not cutting it. I then found that all the most advanced alternative thinking was taking place in theoretical biology - the likes of Rosen, Pattee, Salthe.

And the alternative had many names, such as systems science, semiotics, hierarchy theory, holism, dissipative structure theory, complex adaptive systems, dynamical systems theory.

 

[Kajahtava]

This would suggest you consider your home territory to be lambda calculus - which is indeed an organised body of ideas.

Not at all, it's just a webcomic whose latest comic happens to be a piece of Scheme code which is a pun on the famous drone project Sunn 0))) (which is crap).

I think the connexion between Lisp and Lambda Calculus is overstated, I do however feel that Scheme is a lot closer than Common Lisp to it (dynamic scope, treating functions different than constants, wtf?) but still, the fact that all lisp procedures can take only a single list as argument and use that as some kind of ad-hoc hack to provide other things as argument as well as currying and letrec is a bit dubious to me. I think in most languages, especially Python or Haskell, the lambda keyword is just a nice way to make anonymous functions, they aren't true lambda expressions. I don't really see a difference between Javascript's 'function(a,b) { ... }' and Python's 'lambda x, y: ...' syntax. I don't think any languages which has statements that are not expressions or has variables instead of proper substitutions can have true Lambda expressions. Needless to say of course that what JavaScript and Python provide is more powerful at the cost of minimalism. I'm basically making my own programming language to address some of these issues where every single object is a higher order function and untyped, the only way to type check is for the programmer itself to manually check if data supplied to a function is of the correct internal structure.

My own interest lies in clearly recognising the limits of computability (and all its allied discourses - monadism, locality, atomism, mechanicalism, determinism, information theory) and then saying, well, what is the larger story, what is the broader view of logic and causality then?

I guess my interest is formalism when it comes to this. I'm not as much interested in the conceptual meaning behind a function as much as the explicit behaviour of how it rewrites data. Hence I think type systems are atrocious. Of course some transformations of data can be interpreted as humanly useful and intuitive concepts, such as 'addition', but it's still just a lambda abstraction to me that transforms one lambda abstraction to another, and if the former is a number it transforms it to a lambda abstraction which can be interpreted as raising by that number.

This arose because computational approaches to mind science so clearly were not cutting it. I then found that all the most advanced alternative thinking was taking place in theoretical biology - the likes of Rosen, Pattee, Salthe.

This is again where I ne comprends pas you.

And the alternative had many names, such as systems science, semiotics, hierarchy theory, holism, dissipative structure theory, complex adaptive systems, dynamical systems theory.

I guess this is where my view differs from most people. I don't believe in 'cats' or 'trees' or 'chairs', there's just a collection of elementary particles that collide with each other and feel each other. And I think all collections are best studied in an analogue way.

For instance, that program language, you can interpret it as 'a string', however, what it is is a list of chars, you can interpret them as 'chars', but effectively they're integers > 0 (unicode codepoint), now, you can interpret it as a 'list', but in fact, it's a pair whose first element is a natural number, and whose second element is another list. And you can interpret that as 'a pair', but in reality, it's a function that returns that natural number on given any value except F, and that other list (which can be interpret as the original string minus the first character) on F.

Which is a function, and since it's a function it can be given any argument, indeed, I just said it accepts F, and all other arguments but F. (F itself is a function too of course, but not a church boolean). I really think this how in the end its best to see programs, not thinking in human terms of 'numbers' and 'strings', but think of them in their behaviour. Which is why I, contrary to most people, consider Haskell and Ruby butt-ugly and inelegant languages because they're targeted at human abstractions of reality. Ideally, a language should be able to be run natively and easily on 'some' machine. Needn't be a register machine, might as well be some thing that implements lambda calculus physically. But it shouldn't be too complicated.

In the end, I favour grounding mathematics on treating all objects as functions or algorithms and not sets I suppose, I think set theory is quite ugly in the end. I'm also still a bit uneasy about recursive function definitions that require the function to be named.

Edit: I should add though that I mainly consider myself a musician and then a graphics artist / illustrator, then a programmer and only then some one interested in science.

 

[baywax]

Fair enough on the concrete, but the Romans made USE of it to build a city-states, aquaducts

Metaphorically all you're saying is that the nazis invented rockets (beyond what the Chinese had already invented) that were never used or fully developed. The USA used the rocket designs. Another analogy...the horse grew its own musculature and when the horse died the vultures made use of the muscles by eating them. The primary point is that the invention is invented (out of sheer genius)... how it is used is up to the brutishness of the "conquerer".

Conquering your way around the world is an inefficient and immature way to exert influence. The most efficient way to influence the world is to succeed as a culture setting an example and creating a civilization without infringement or harm to your citizens or the citizens of any other nation. This way you will not have the distraction of 500,000 slaves revolting on you or the civil strife of slave owners costing you productive lives and billions of dollars. When another culture imitates this form of governance, they also do not infringe or harm their citizens or yours. This is highly efficient in that production remains steady and the potential for trade grows exponentially with parity between nations.

Slavery may have seemed innocuous enough during the many centuries it was practiced and may have held a certain efficiency for one of the two parties involved. But, as time ensued the revolutions and the huge numbers of uneducated and partially productive individuals it spawned became a liability. No amount of reparation can bring the slaves and descendants of slaves up to par with the masters and the descendants of the masters. A huge amount of trauma/damage has taken place in any slave/master scenario that will almost certainly stain their relations for eons to come. That, my good sir, is not efficient.

, in fact Londinium was no city when the Romans arrived. By all accounts, it was mostly forest (REAL forest) and maybe a small Celtic settlement. It isn't even known if "Londinium" was a play on the original name (often the Roman way), or purely invented. Founded in... I think 45 AD, it fell with the Roman Empire, about 500 years later.

The Druids may have had a name for it, but if so, no one is sure. I'm familiar with Latin, and proto-Saxon (circa Dream of The Rood), but the Druids predate that language, so I don't know, and academic views are split. Frankly it wasn't a major player in the Roman Empire, and when it fell, it FELL.

As for the Roman culture... I'm half Greek (first generation) so believe me I know. You're right though, I don't "get out" in the way you mean enough to have a sense of what most people know or not anymore.

Of course, they didn't really "rip it off", they did what people have done as long as we've been people; they merged, and adapted. I'm sure if the orignal Romans saw their descendants of the Roman EMPIRE and its essentially Greek Pantheon, they'd have screamed! Such is history. Then again, the Greeks "ripped it off" too, from the language (all the way back to original Canaanite and proto-Phoenician).

Does that matter? As for Slave Labour, I think you're focusing on the American story. The reality is that Greece and Rome, Egypt, and Africa, and The USA were BUILT on the backs of slaves. In Rome and Greece, a slave of course meant a range of things not implied in the USA model of slavery. Perhaps the racism in the latter was the difference, and the view of Africans as "non-people"?

Anyway, the Spartacus lost, and the Colliseum is a major tourist attraction. What do you make of that, in terms of slaves and the LONG term? I don't LIKE slavery, but it's VERY efficient. Probably, that's why it's STILL so prevalent: Outright, or sweat-shops, or Asian wage-slaves, or Americans bound by debt. Then there are the REAL slaves, being sold for sex or work, etc.

EDIT: @Apeiron: "You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality." Really? In the GENERAL Lounge? In the PHILOSOPHY section? Bull****. Either engage or leave, you're lowering the tone of the place; a difficult feat to accomplish in the Lounge.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Fortunately this is a question where we can appeal to authority.

See forum guidelines...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294

For example...



So there was an attempt to set up productive global constraints on locally free discussion. The guidelines exist in the belief that there is a definition of functional chat.

We are now indeed discussing an example of ethics in action as I have described it. You are saying my "ethics" are out-of-line and not conducive to the persistence of the system by the standards of "a lounge". I am saying you and some others are not living up to the "ethics" of a philosophy forum.

We can both agree that either system can tolerate a certain amount of gray, of non-functional local activity, if overall the majority of activity is responsive to the system's overall purpose.

But my view of the purposes of this forum seem to be there in black and white.

Fire away...

Cute... irrelevant and pedantic, but cute. I'd "fire away", but I don't let loose the broadside on unarmed vessles... it's an ethical thing.

@baywax: I'll respond tommorrow (very late where I am). I think your view on invention vs. use is a good one, but then again, what measure of an inventions success is there, but the manner in which it is applied? You say slave labour is innefficient, but you're speaking in terms of (at that time) DOZENS of human generations! By any standard of the day, unless you lived during a slave revolt, it was damned conventient and very efficient NOT to pay people. Of course, slavery in Rome and Greece represented MANY possiblities, some of which we would probably not consider slavery now. By the same token, the rights of a non-citizen/non-slave were hardly great.

You're also ignoring the many slave revolts that were put down, and avoided. One example... one UNUSUAL example of a massed slave revolt doesn't prove your point, or even SUPPORT it. It's the rarity of such events that makes what Spartacus did so amazing. You might remember that the Via Appia still ended up lined with men on crucifixes, and it wasn't the Senators.

Conquest is efficient, maintaining the land conquered is a challenge. Rome was one of the most efficient conquering bodies in history, but it overreached. That isn't fundamental flaw of conquest, but of scope. I'll expand on this tommorrow. You may want to research the history of intra-ethnic slavery in Africa and Asia in the meantime, and just how such a gross inefficiency has survived the process of natural selection, and why we seem to RETURN to slavery and such barbarism.

For the record, I am AGAINST conquest and slavery, but that doesn't mean I'll pretend it's inneffective, especially in human and Dynastic time-frames.

EDIT: Baywax: conquest is also a lot like pollination for humans... even when it "fails", it's AMAZINGLY efficient at keeping the relevant genetics in the game. Rome is proof of that, as is Ireland, and many other countries. As DanP has said, your view is ideal, but not one which reflects a working knowledge of history. Sometimes experts in one field forget that expertise does not commute. As for rockets... The Chinese invented them, AND used them as weapons of war, as did the Koreans, and others. The Nazis under that great **** von Braun (love the song by Lehrer!) and NASA later, did a fine job making killing machines. No petrol? Werner can solve zis, ja! Use Ethonol, und zen, POOF mit London! So yes, when it comes to efficiency apparently the Nazi rocket engineers had it down for the time, which is presumably why we compromised OUR ethics by recruiting the murdering bastards.

 

[DanP]

Conquering your way around the world is an inefficient and immature way to exert influence. The most efficient way to influence the world is to succeed as a culture setting an example and creating a civilization without infringement or harm to your citizens or the citizens of any other nation. This way you will not have the distraction of 500,000 slaves revolting on you or the civil strife of slave owners costing you productive lives and billions of dollars. When another culture imitates this form of governance, they also do not infringe or harm their citizens or yours. This is highly efficient in that production remains steady and the potential for trade grows exponentially with parity between nations.

This is your point of view, but it's totally ruptured from the historical reality, and dare I say, present reality of the world too.

 

[apeiron]

Cute... irrelevant and pedantic, but cute. I'd "fire away", but I don't let loose the broadside on unarmed vessles... it's an ethical thing. :Smile:

My citing the forum guidelines is hardly irrelevant or pedantic if you are making claims about the nature of the forum.

But yes, smile and pretend to feel no pain as you beat a hasty retreat. As you say, if you can't engage, leave quietly.

 

[DanP]

Cheer up, gentlemans.

Internet is fun

 

[Frame Dragger]

Cheer up, gentlemans.

Internet is fun

That's what I thought, but you know how some people are, "Internet: Serious Business!"

@Apeiron: I don't know what kind of retreat you think I'm beating, but you need to cut the dramatis personae and snap to. You were harrassing someone else, and now you're doing me the honor. Once again I'll ask that you make a contribution to the discussion rather than derail it as you have. It was going well until you decided to be the arbiter of the forum, yet I note a lack of "staff" anywhere near your name.

As for pain... do you really think the internet can inflict pain in this context? That seems unlikely... still if you need that fantasy of hurting me through the internet... *shrug*

EDIT: A quick perusal of the last few pages shows that you've offered little by way of anything constructive. You've made one-sentence "contributions" which amount to pseudointellectual hit-and-run on DanP, Kajahtava, and now myself. It seems that DanP refuted your argument, and you beat a "hastey retreat" for the better part of a page until you apparently thought you could "score points" on Kajahtava. Contribute to the discussion, or leave the thread, that's also part of forum guidlines, and your overall "pattern" over the past pages has been disruptive and critical without significant contribution of your own view or ideas.

 

[brainstorm]

No one ever just keeps asking why. Even if they do, it's not ALL they do. They go on doing other things like living, consuming, and interacting with other people/animals/things. So as long as you fail to reach a sense of ethics and treat yourself and others accordingly, there is a good chance that your actions toward others and yourself will be more harmful than if you had begun reasoning out an ethics to use as a moral compass for informing your decision-making.

 

[baywax]

Cute... irrelevant and pedantic, but cute. I'd "fire away", but I don't let loose the broadside on unarmed vessles... it's an ethical thing.

@baywax: I'll respond tommorrow (very late where I am). I think your view on invention vs. use is a good one, but then again, what measure of an inventions success is there, but the manner in which it is applied? You say slave labour is innefficient, but you're speaking in terms of (at that time) DOZENS of human generations! By any standard of the day, unless you lived during a slave revolt, it was damned conventient and very efficient NOT to pay people. Of course, slavery in Rome and Greece represented MANY possiblities, some of which we would probably not consider slavery now. By the same token, the rights of a non-citizen/non-slave were hardly great.

You're also ignoring the many slave revolts that were put down, and avoided. One example... one UNUSUAL example of a massed slave revolt doesn't prove your point, or even SUPPORT it. It's the rarity of such events that makes what Spartacus did so amazing. You might remember that the Via Appia still ended up lined with men on crucifixes, and it wasn't the Senators.

Conquest is efficient, maintaining the land conquered is a challenge. Rome was one of the most efficient conquering bodies in history, but it overreached. That isn't fundamental flaw of conquest, but of scope. I'll expand on this tommorrow. You may want to research the history of intra-ethnic slavery in Africa and Asia in the meantime, and just how such a gross inefficiency has survived the process of natural selection, and why we seem to RETURN to slavery and such barbarism.

For the record, I am AGAINST conquest and slavery, but that doesn't mean I'll pretend it's inneffective, especially in human and Dynastic time-frames.

EDIT: Baywax: conquest is also a lot like pollination for humans... even when it "fails", it's AMAZINGLY efficient at keeping the relevant genetics in the game. Rome is proof of that, as is Ireland, and many other countries. As DanP has said, your view is ideal, but not one which reflects a working knowledge of history. Sometimes experts in one field forget that expertise does not commute. As for rockets... The Chinese invented them, AND used them as weapons of war, as did the Koreans, and others. The Nazis under that great **** von Braun (love the song by Lehrer!) and NASA later, did a fine job making killing machines. No petrol? Werner can solve zis, ja! Use Ethonol, und zen, POOF mit London! So yes, when it comes to efficiency apparently the Nazi rocket engineers had it down for the time, which is presumably why we compromised OUR ethics by recruiting the murdering bastards.

I could agree and leave it at that but... on the issue of slavery... the efficiency of a happy, paid worker pitted against efficiency of the forced - slave labourer will always come out with the paid and somewhat "equal" worker on top.

Inherent in the slave/master relationship will always be the need to revolt, run away, seek revenge etc...

Now, if you can ignore the post office scenarios... inherent in the paid model of labourer... is the motivation to continue, not bother the boss and hope for a raise later... or at least a continued paycheque.

The inefficiencies that come with slavery are numerous and would go well into time I don't have... but think about it... think about the leaps and bounds Romans could have made with educated and appreciated labour serving as its backbone... rather than the hostility and loathing created amongst her slaves. True we've seen these civilizations last over 500 years... but at what cost and where are they now? If we were to gauge the efficiency of a civilization... and its ethics... by its longevity we might get an interesting picture... perhaps that's a good project for this thread.

 

[apeiron]

I could agree and leave it at that but... on the issue of slavery... the efficiency of a happy, paid worker pitted against efficiency of the forced - slave labourer will always come out with the paid and somewhat "equal" worker on top.

There is of course a modern version of slavery called globalisation. Asian sweatshops, foreign farms, where many hands work to make life cheap and easy for the rich west.

So it is both true that societies with motivated individuals will motor along, but also that growth can be achieved by the recruitment of a large enough pool of inefficient and reluctant workers.

The romans had to keep their slaves under a tight rein. We rely on distance, impotence and ignorance to maintain our world order. Or make sure the local dictators remain well-armed.

Of course, the west has also exported free market economics to some traditional slave countries like China (ask the chinese about the coolie labour that built the Pacific rim after the banning of the African slave trade if you really want to hear their view on how the west actually did exploit them).

But anyway, China is moving from the enslaved to the motivated worker - and already owns large chunks of its former masters.

 

[kote]

But anyway, China is moving from the enslaved to the motivated worker - and already owns large chunks of its former masters.

That's how globalization works though. I wouldn't call it slavery at all. The faster the pace of globalization, the faster we'll reach an equilibrium between world economies. Free trade allows supply in third world countries to feed demand elsewhere. The established economies export wealth to the countries with cheaper labor, which eventually drives demand locally in those countries.

China just ran a record trade deficit in March as it imported material from and outsourced labor to other parts of Asia which are now much cheaper.

Oh, and having managed union work, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't be able to get more out of slaves. Productivity has a lot more to do with production processes than worker efficiency though, although the best production processes are continuously improved by the workers on the line.