"> If the united states government were willing to spend the same
>sort of control to suppress gangs in your neighbor hood as it is to
>suppress gfngs in Afganistan, I imagine they could clean things
>up pretty quick."
{Alien View]
The US Govt is exporting its neighborhood gangs to Afghanistan,
and importing back enough narcotics to sustain and perpetuate
those gangs
But you guys didn't invent it. The East India Company did it
for years with the opium trade to China.
Sarbajit
On 9/27/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Doug,
>
>
>
> At the risk of going all relativistic on you, WTF do you mean by Societal
> degeneracy? I take it you are NOT a pacifist. So, it's not that gang
> members kill one another in defense of honor, or territory, or to control
> economic resources. After all, governments do that all the time, right?
> One of the things that is terrifying about gangs is how truly evolved they
> are. From the point of view of society at large, their flourishing is a
> DE-volution, but that's a matter of yours (and my) affection for
> hierarchical integration. As social organizations go, they are pretty
> "evolved." If the united states government were willing to spend the same
> sort of control to suppress gangs in your neighbor hood as it is to
> suppress
> gangs in Afganistan, I imagine they could clean things up pretty quick.
> Crikers, for what it costs to run the Afganistan war for a minute, they
> could have two soldiers with M-1's standing outside every house in Espanola
> indefinitely, right? The problem is not THEIR degeneracy, but OURS. We
> are
> unwilling to assert our control over them.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:20 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
>
>
> The common theme, however, just to tie a bow on it, is societal degeneracy.
>
> On Sep 26, 2012 10:15 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <d...@parrot-farm.net> wrote:
>
> I suspect that the more sensitive members of this list will think that my
> last message was unnecessarily pejorative with respect to gangs, and gang
> members. It would probably therefore be foolish of me to suggest including
> child-abusing priests, scientologists, and more than a few of the military
> industrial profiteers in the "better off dead" list.
>
> So I won't.
>
> Best to quietly just resume the scholarly discussions about "faith".
>
> Don't you think?
>
> On Sep 26, 2012 10:03 PM, "Douglas Roberts" <d...@parrot-farm.net> wrote:
>
> Still, irrespective of whomever coined that old "fittest" rubric, dead gang
> members are far more productive members of society than live ones, I
> suspect.
>
> On Sep 26, 2012 9:48 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> Darwinism only says that the least prolific will be eliminated. It says
> nothing about degeneracy, unless, of course profligacy is defined as
> "advanced." Spencer was the social Darwinist, not Darwin. In fact, it was
> SPENCER, who coined "the survival of the fittest", I believe.
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
>
>
> Well, speaking from my own (apparent) semi-unique perspective: Darwin's
> proposition of "Survival of the Fittest" would seem to scream out for the
> elimination of degenerate components of society which threaten to bring the
> entire species to total extinction.
>
>
>
> And, being an engineer, I cannot but cheer and encourage any activity that
> speeds the destruction of those destructive elements of society. Like gang
> conflicts, for example. And religion, for another. Not that there is much
> difference, really.
>
>
>
> --Doug
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Tory -
>
>
>
> Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging
> to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?
>
> I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins
> released.
>
>
>
> I don't think I'm talking about two differing approaches.
>
>
>
> Some beliefs are so common that no one even thinks about them. Many people
> deny that they're beliefs at all. Other beliefs extend and explain and
> modify the common ones in different ways. But I say we're all believers on
> this bus, some are just more conscious of it.
>
>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
>
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>
>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
