Hi,
Many years ago when I was working on my undergraduate thesis in the
jungle of Amazonas in Colombia, I knew a North American Anthropologist
whom had been working there for a long time studying the way how an
indigenous culture disappeared. I horrified with it and thought It was
inmoral. Older members of the team of researchers where I was working
told me that she was making science and that a scientific must be
neutral. I think it's totally false. A scientific has an emotional and
political charge, deep inside feels himself like a demiurge and for
these reasons can't be completely impartial. What is science for?
Science have a social function, must help us to understand and resolve
problems but of course is an instruments of politics because finally we
are in a world of gangs.
I have an hypothesis: biotechnology, robotics, informatics, smart
software and internationalization of economy will increase poverty in
the underdeveloped world. I'm not a scientific but suppose I am, I take
data and develop a sophisticated model. Maybe, be sure, I'll conclude
that my hypothesis is true and I'll say for first time something
brilliant like "Poverty is a emergent process"... wow, what a
conclusion!!!. If a guy which dream is to be high executive of the
World Bank, IMF or WTO takes data and develops a sophisticated model
will conclude that my hypothesis is false and will say "Richness is an
emergent process". Maybe neither of us will be telling lies, of course
I'll be right but I'll pray for his conclusion to be right because at
the end he will be a high executive and will have the last word.
Alfredo CV
Robert Cordingley wrote:
Glen,
It seems the world has had for a long time, and still has, oppression,
poverty and poor education of segments of its population. Perhaps we
can say that the developed world has managed to lower their own
deprived segment size while the un(der)developed hasn't made so much
progress. (Do you remember the TADtalk visualization on poverty?)
It is considered by many, including you and me, that having deprived
segments of the world's population is unethical because of the ethical
standards we hold, have learned (and have been indoctrinated in, if
you will).
It remains ethical to work towards the reduction and elimination of
these deprived segments - it's a big job. The argument is over how.
I don't believe complexity science or studies and simulations of
Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) are yet sufficiently mature to help
very far in this endeavor, but I'm not an expert in the field. It just
seems that way from the perspective of an observer.
That complexity studies indicate emergent behavior that is otherwise
hard to predict and matches small systems (ie < 10^6 agents) behavior
is *very* interesting and justifies further work. I don't think it
separates cause and effect which is the primary reason for not using
such studies for predictive purposes. And there is no evidence yet of
successful studies or simulations that model social change, e.g. the
French or Russian Revolutions. (Please correct me if this is wrong).
So it seems that the problems of society (including trying to figure
out what is the 'best' form of government) are not yet subject to
relief from CAS studies. Many would not want one small class of
experts to be responsible for this task anyway.
Going back to your original ethical dilemma, if one agrees with what
is ethical and one's political position doesn't then one will
change/adjust/modify one's political position to maintain one's
internal integrity. Labels and technicalities in definitions may be
part of the problem:
I am a democrat because I believe everyone should have a say in
government,
I am an environmentalist because we should take care of our biosphere
so it remains habitable for us,
I am a monarchist because I don't want to disband the Royal Family,
I am libertarian because I don't want a Big Brother government,
I am conservative because I think we shouldn't waste our resources,
I am a republican in the sense I don't want to dismantle the US
federal system and its three branches of government,
I am a capitalist because I believe in free-markets,
I am socialist because I believe everyone deserves basic health care,
education, justice,
I am a moderate because I believe we deserve a system of justice that
can reign in man's excesses.
etc
If complexity science turns out to be a powerful technology it may
take it's place along side fire, nuclear power and genetic
engineering. All are amoral. It's how we use them for our benefit
that will exercise our morals (ethics).
Robert C
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
The sides being a) the ethical consideration of
things like abject poverty, epidemic diseases, starvation, etc. and b)
the objective necessity that, with a population-based search method,
some individuals are destined for extrema, often very unpleasant
extrema. And it is especially difficult to simultaneously consider both
sides when the members of the population who are destined for horrible
extrema like AIDS or starvation are innocents who didn't have any chance
to _choose_ their extreme destiny.
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
Power never takes a back step - only in the face of more power. -- Malcolm X
============================================================
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
