On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:08:07AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > So, the fact that the US won the last two great battles doesn't mean > that our system of human rights is a logical byproduct of evolution, > any more than extreme nationalism would have been proven by a German > victory or the historical dialectic by a Communist victory. It was a > lucky break, just as
Well, there's lucky and then there's LUCKY. If I'm playing 5 card draw and I take 3 cards keeping a pair of aces, I still need luck to win against someone who draws one card to a 5678. But the odds are in my favor. I think it is pretty clear that neither pure competition nor pure cooperation is likely to work as a way to run a society. While it is a good book, the society in Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_ is unlikely to prevail in the world for several reasons, not the least of which is that not many people would WANT such a society. On the other extreme, socialism/communism has repeatedly failed to produce any stunning successes. I think it is pretty clear that a balanced system, like the pair of aces above, has the edge. The optimal balance may not be clear, whether it leans toward the American side or toward the Scandinavian side, or in between (Britain?). But I think America's success is a good indicator of what can be accomplished by balancing cooperation and competition. I would bet that if you could set up an accurate simulation (SimWorld++ ?) that the systems similar to America's would win most of the time. If you consistently come up with the most and best ideas while filtering out the really bad ideas, you have a tremendous edge over people who are taking their choices from a broader distribution. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
