Definitely agreeing on experts and the problem of determination on who really is worth following. Unfortunately, we outsourced this problem to the markets and the best solution always gets paid—services and products always gets patronized by consumers. Capitalism ain’t perfect but it does have the best model so far for rewarding productive efforts.
btw please show me your presentation, give the link =)
So what I have a came across as the best option for distinguishing which decision, speech or action is on point and simply a distraction? Neitszche’s argument on truth—that truth serves life and anything that fails to frame his /her actions on serving the preservation of life is surely doing it wrongfully.
I’m afraid you’ll have to help me a bit on your last post, as two things weren’t clear to me: first, on experts, you first seem to qualify it as unfortunate that we pay for the best solution—and then you qualify capitalism (talk positively of it) in rewarding ‘productive efforts’. In these two sentences, are ‘the best solution’ and ′ productive efforts’ the same thing?
Also, on the second paragraph, I remember from back in the day that Nietzche was regarded as being a perspectivist on truth (truth through one’s own perspective), so I’d ask you to tell me which of the following you are arguing for, the preservation of (one’s) life (ie subjective) or the preservation of life (or even Life) in general? If the latter, then unfortunately my question persists, who decides about what is relevant for the preservation of Life in general? the biologists?
Do you have any other methods that is better in solving the problem of inequality other than the rewarded service or product by consumers? It is not a perfect solution because this system can also get corrupt (again human self interest as an issue) that is why I am not fully comfortable that we can go all in with capitalism towards the future - but it’s way better than communism. Sorry for my choice of descriptions to my ideas, I will try to be more clearer in this one and the succeeding replies.
Any decision that preserves human life and the natural world is what I refer as truthful. Why would arguing with a fireman from saving a burning house be debatable if you so believe that certain actions are not feasible? Too much of the semantics keeps us from really making viable solutions to the present and far future. Actions that matter preserves life. I am not asking you to agree with me but this concept have literally made me do a lot more than my previous mode where I just continiously ask questions and do not get things done.
I think some sort of status recognition, for example more participation in the decisions concering the collective could induce more equality—though to be honest i haven’t given this much thought. Maybe otherwise a redistribution of resources or starting from zero every few generations.
However, I cannot see how capitalism and giving money for solutions can do anything other than create and sustain inequality. I may be missing something from your reasoning.
Again, aiming for equality of outcomes is not a great idea for the reasons I have stated earlier. It’s an unsolveable problem.
Can you outline the reasons why you think capitalistic endeavors creates ONLY inequality? I mean isn’t the exchange of goods or services for credit and/or money a fair one?
You can also point out which of my reasoning is flawed.
Do you think there are unsolveable problems? Though about the specific one, I think it can be solved by a mix of selection or just by random selection of candidates (in the context of public decision-makers).
Mm to answer your second question first, I struggle to see the connection between fairness and the exchange of goods for money. For example, I could well envisage a gift economy or exchange of time instead of credit and material goods. Though again, not sure all of this would be fairer rather than just alternatives. I’ll have to look into the notion of fairness a bit more. I remember a bit of Rawls and justice as fairness, but I’ll have to spend some time dusting that up in order to have something interesting to say.
As for why I said exchange for money only produces inequality, i guess what i meant was that if one medium of the exchange (money) can be used for anything, whilst the other has specific uses, then I guess the person who ends up with the thing for anything is better off—especially if they start specialising in collecting this use-for-everything good and yardstick. In plain words, I guess if some people end up with more money and others with less, then that for me is inequality enough.
The problems under the Millenium prize that needs to be solve is a great sample of “unsolveable problems”. My day job currently is a accounting and operational control—and in my everyday experience—different sets of problems needs different sets of solutions, moreover the more difficult it is—the more expertise is required to solve problems quicker and cheaper. We do not outsource design issues to the design staff and vote for solutions—we go straight ahead for the Chief designer. There are many examples to be honest of how we aim to solve issues quicker and cheaper.....and heading directly to the experienced ones.
I do not again discount the role of corruption in producing inequalities all over the world, have seen this in the highest echelons of society upto the loweest form of governance—as corruption can trump any system of governance—even capitalism. Having said that, In great economies were an exchange between two people or entities happen after agreement—The role of money solves so many issues for both: 1) simplification of measurement, 2) easily accountable, 3) easily understood by all parties and even those not transacting (eg. banks and governments); 4) Accepted by all even banks and governments—and the list goes on...
Pareto principle is a terrible observation but it is a hard truth to swallow: why the strongest pride of lions gets to dominate the large swat of African wilderness, why 20% of clients drive the most revenue for any business, Why 20% of content drives 80% of the traffic in a website, and yeah 20% of the rich people accounts for 80% of the wealth. It is a trend that is observed that the more one has, the more opportunities it will gain and we do not have to agree with this terrible truth but it is happening not only in money but everything that requires a hierarchy or distribution. Again, I do not like this fact but unfortunately it is a phenomenon that keeps happening everywhere.
Thank you for your time here. And I appreciate all your thoughts, ideas.
First of all, it seems to me that your first paragraph on expertise seems to go against the firefighters (and free speech) example. As for money, I take home the standardizing function (what you label as simplification of measurement), however, about that and then about capitalism, I think we can agree to disagree as to what facts and truths are in this given discussion. I don’t think these facts are important for lions for example, so maybe we can try to live like lions? Or like foragers for example? :) (especially if we don’t all have the space constraint by all being constricted on Earth).
Many thanks for your ideas too, they’re good food for thought and a reality check for me!
I was expanding about the pareto principle concept which applies to not only humans, but everything that has hierarchies or distribution in it—computers, animals, money it applies...not only us. I do not say I agree with inequalities of distribution of wealth, resource, selection etc. But knowing it does exist in varying fields is very helpful especially in constructing better arguments.
As you may have found out by now, I’m sometimes a bit sceptical about such ‘scientific principles’ - also you may have seen what I hinted about before, that there have been human societies which didn’t have hierarchies, so it’s not totally not impossible.
I have seen records that even lobsters 350 million years ago share the same neuropharmacology with serotonin—the transmitter in our neurons for determining dominance hierarchies...that is actually as old as the first trees in the planet. The problem of inequality has been with us forever. Not only in humans—but nature has it too.
wow, that sounds really interesting, the lobsters evidence! Though if you ask most people they’ll probably say that humans are ‘something more’ than just animals, be they either god’s images or just rational beings (suggesting that other beings are less or not rational).
Yes Haris, the hard problem of inequality in nature, animals and us—existed a third of a billion years ago. That is why it’s not human only problem. I really do not have a viable one size fits all solution for inequality..
Hi Haris,
Definitely agreeing on experts and the problem of determination on who really is worth following. Unfortunately, we outsourced this problem to the markets and the best solution always gets paid—services and products always gets patronized by consumers. Capitalism ain’t perfect but it does have the best model so far for rewarding productive efforts.
btw please show me your presentation, give the link =)
So what I have a came across as the best option for distinguishing which decision, speech or action is on point and simply a distraction? Neitszche’s argument on truth—that truth serves life and anything that fails to frame his /her actions on serving the preservation of life is surely doing it wrongfully.
Hope I brought better ideas in this reply,
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Hi, hope you and yours are all well!
I’m afraid you’ll have to help me a bit on your last post, as two things weren’t clear to me: first, on experts, you first seem to qualify it as unfortunate that we pay for the best solution—and then you qualify capitalism (talk positively of it) in rewarding ‘productive efforts’. In these two sentences, are ‘the best solution’ and ′ productive efforts’ the same thing?
Also, on the second paragraph, I remember from back in the day that Nietzche was regarded as being a perspectivist on truth (truth through one’s own perspective), so I’d ask you to tell me which of the following you are arguing for, the preservation of (one’s) life (ie subjective) or the preservation of life (or even Life) in general? If the latter, then unfortunately my question persists, who decides about what is relevant for the preservation of Life in general? the biologists?
As for the presentation, let me find it, I think it’s this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326829642_Scientific_Expert_Committees_Wicked_Problems_and_Procedure
I’d be happy to revisit it and discuss it :)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
All is well, thanks. Hope you are well too.
Do you have any other methods that is better in solving the problem of inequality other than the rewarded service or product by consumers? It is not a perfect solution because this system can also get corrupt (again human self interest as an issue) that is why I am not fully comfortable that we can go all in with capitalism towards the future - but it’s way better than communism. Sorry for my choice of descriptions to my ideas, I will try to be more clearer in this one and the succeeding replies.
Any decision that preserves human life and the natural world is what I refer as truthful. Why would arguing with a fireman from saving a burning house be debatable if you so believe that certain actions are not feasible? Too much of the semantics keeps us from really making viable solutions to the present and far future. Actions that matter preserves life. I am not asking you to agree with me but this concept have literally made me do a lot more than my previous mode where I just continiously ask questions and do not get things done.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
I think some sort of status recognition, for example more participation in the decisions concering the collective could induce more equality—though to be honest i haven’t given this much thought. Maybe otherwise a redistribution of resources or starting from zero every few generations.
However, I cannot see how capitalism and giving money for solutions can do anything other than create and sustain inequality. I may be missing something from your reasoning.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Again, aiming for equality of outcomes is not a great idea for the reasons I have stated earlier. It’s an unsolveable problem.
Can you outline the reasons why you think capitalistic endeavors creates ONLY inequality? I mean isn’t the exchange of goods or services for credit and/or money a fair one?
You can also point out which of my reasoning is flawed.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Do you think there are unsolveable problems? Though about the specific one, I think it can be solved by a mix of selection or just by random selection of candidates (in the context of public decision-makers).
Mm to answer your second question first, I struggle to see the connection between fairness and the exchange of goods for money. For example, I could well envisage a gift economy or exchange of time instead of credit and material goods. Though again, not sure all of this would be fairer rather than just alternatives. I’ll have to look into the notion of fairness a bit more. I remember a bit of Rawls and justice as fairness, but I’ll have to spend some time dusting that up in order to have something interesting to say.
As for why I said exchange for money only produces inequality, i guess what i meant was that if one medium of the exchange (money) can be used for anything, whilst the other has specific uses, then I guess the person who ends up with the thing for anything is better off—especially if they start specialising in collecting this use-for-everything good and yardstick. In plain words, I guess if some people end up with more money and others with less, then that for me is inequality enough.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
The problems under the Millenium prize that needs to be solve is a great sample of “unsolveable problems”. My day job currently is a accounting and operational control—and in my everyday experience—different sets of problems needs different sets of solutions, moreover the more difficult it is—the more expertise is required to solve problems quicker and cheaper. We do not outsource design issues to the design staff and vote for solutions—we go straight ahead for the Chief designer. There are many examples to be honest of how we aim to solve issues quicker and cheaper.....and heading directly to the experienced ones.
I do not again discount the role of corruption in producing inequalities all over the world, have seen this in the highest echelons of society upto the loweest form of governance—as corruption can trump any system of governance—even capitalism. Having said that, In great economies were an exchange between two people or entities happen after agreement—The role of money solves so many issues for both: 1) simplification of measurement, 2) easily accountable, 3) easily understood by all parties and even those not transacting (eg. banks and governments); 4) Accepted by all even banks and governments—and the list goes on...
Pareto principle is a terrible observation but it is a hard truth to swallow: why the strongest pride of lions gets to dominate the large swat of African wilderness, why 20% of clients drive the most revenue for any business, Why 20% of content drives 80% of the traffic in a website, and yeah 20% of the rich people accounts for 80% of the wealth. It is a trend that is observed that the more one has, the more opportunities it will gain and we do not have to agree with this terrible truth but it is happening not only in money but everything that requires a hierarchy or distribution. Again, I do not like this fact but unfortunately it is a phenomenon that keeps happening everywhere.
Thank you for your time here. And I appreciate all your thoughts, ideas.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
First of all, it seems to me that your first paragraph on expertise seems to go against the firefighters (and free speech) example. As for money, I take home the standardizing function (what you label as simplification of measurement), however, about that and then about capitalism, I think we can agree to disagree as to what facts and truths are in this given discussion. I don’t think these facts are important for lions for example, so maybe we can try to live like lions? Or like foragers for example? :) (especially if we don’t all have the space constraint by all being constricted on Earth).
Many thanks for your ideas too, they’re good food for thought and a reality check for me!
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
I was expanding about the pareto principle concept which applies to not only humans, but everything that has hierarchies or distribution in it—computers, animals, money it applies...not only us. I do not say I agree with inequalities of distribution of wealth, resource, selection etc. But knowing it does exist in varying fields is very helpful especially in constructing better arguments.
All the best,
Miguel
Hey hello,
As you may have found out by now, I’m sometimes a bit sceptical about such ‘scientific principles’ - also you may have seen what I hinted about before, that there have been human societies which didn’t have hierarchies, so it’s not totally not impossible.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
I have seen records that even lobsters 350 million years ago share the same neuropharmacology with serotonin—the transmitter in our neurons for determining dominance hierarchies...that is actually as old as the first trees in the planet. The problem of inequality has been with us forever. Not only in humans—but nature has it too.
All the best,
Miguel
Hey hello,
wow, that sounds really interesting, the lobsters evidence! Though if you ask most people they’ll probably say that humans are ‘something more’ than just animals, be they either god’s images or just rational beings (suggesting that other beings are less or not rational).
Best Wishes,
Haris
Yes Haris, the hard problem of inequality in nature, animals and us—existed a third of a billion years ago. That is why it’s not human only problem. I really do not have a viable one size fits all solution for inequality..
All the best,
Miguel