-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I have an ongoing cognitive conflict w.r.t. the principles I infer from complexity theory and my ethical indoctrination/rearing. Perhaps some of you wise ones can throw some words at the conflict to help me sort it out. The primary principle I've inferred from complexity theory (such as it is) is: the extent versus the objectives of control structures should show something like an inverse power law to maintain a balance between diversity and efficacy. (It's not my intention to start an argument about whether complexity theory really implies this... So, if you criticize that part of this e-mail, I'll just remove the reference to complexity theory and such removal won't damage the point.) The primary ethical rule I've been taught to hold is that all people are equivalent but never equal and that the extent of the equivalence depends on the chosen equivalence class. I'm currently living through a transition in my political views. I used to be a hardcore libertarian and believed, fundamentally, that non-local government is incapable of governing many variables. I'm not saying that there are particular variables they can or can't regulate. I'm saying there's a limit to the total _number_ of variables, whatever they are, that a massive, global structure like the feds can handle. For example, the federal government here in the states can govern some number of variables (say 10 million) but cannot govern as many as can be governed by decentralized, local government. But, the implications of the limitation are that humans in one part of our country may be horribly abused, oppressed, ignored because the federal government has chosen to concentrate its energies on a set of variables unrelated to that particular local abuse or oppression. And my ethical upbringing makes me think that our nation-wide government ought to govern all the variables according to some universally applicable human standards, regardless of how many variables that comes to. For example, I tend to believe that nobody in the US should starve. In the past, I would have argued against the centralized control over food distribution. I would have said that it's good for a small segment of the population to enjoy steak and champagne while the large segments have to stick to McDonald's and Schlitz Malt Liquor. But, as I get older, my resolve has started to crumble. This is made especially acute when I see blatantly unethical behavior on the part of the rich white guys who run our government. Of course, my libertarian mind makes the statement that all of us are just exploiting the resources available to us. And that makes me want to cheer on the Karl Rove's of the world! Congrats! You win! Guys like that are a healthy example of the rich diversity of control structures we facilitate in our society, evidence that the inverse power law remains. But then my upbringing tells me that Karl Rove is just a slimy perverted opportunist who needs regulation by the populace. The problem with that upbringing is that the more of these regulations we make more universal (increase the extent of a control structure), the less agile we'll be when the environment changes (e.g. climate change forcing evacuation of coastal cities or the collapse of the dollar in the wake of a financial attack by China... or whatever). Hence, the more we _allow_ diverse individuals (including slimy perverts) their diversity, the more agile we'll be as a collective when the sh*t hits the fan. For example, look at all the people who are _completely_ dependent on the federal government for their well-being: FDA, Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, high-risk mortgage bail-outs for low-income home owners, FDIC insured banks, well-maintained highway infrastructure, etc. Any thoughts on how to reconcile these two contradictory principles (high diversity versus universal human properties) are welcome. Luckily, as Lovecraft once said: "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." So, even if they remain contradictory, I can retain (and be hypocritical about) both of them. But, given the recent conversation about networks and cliques, I figured I'd throw this out and see what came back. [grin] - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over it. -- Steven Wright -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG2HTNZeB+vOTnLkoRAjkeAKDHERJCD6OsA3WGQFJ35469axQRBQCfU1U+ eri5t4s24t0/lL9yNTU3lsU= =1DIU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
