Talk-Polywell.org

Duane says:

It is forcing others to do your will, even in contradiction to their own. It is an ecstasy of status.

Machiavelli says that kind of thing is hard to keep up for a long time. It may be exercised from time to time out of necessity but as a long term strategy it crates resents followed by the knife in the back or poison in the cup.

It is much better to join with people who's wills agree with yours.

Now take this BFR thing for instance. I command no one. No one commands me and yet....

MSimon wrote:Machiavelli says that kind of thing is hard to keep up for a long time. It may be exercised from time to time out of necessity but as a long term strategy it crates resents followed by the knife in the back or poison in the cup.

Yup. Nicky Mach was right.

Three generation rule. Grandpa makes the money. His kids spend the money like drunken sailors. The grandkids work in the gutters.

MSimon wrote:It is much better to join with people who's wills agree with yours.

That's a polity.

MSimon wrote:Now take this BFR thing for instance. I command no one. No one commands me and yet....

Scientific thought and innovation works differently from status and power politics. See Jane Jacobs' "Systems of Survival."

Duane

None of which are the genuine luxuries of wealth. A paste bead is not a pearl.

That begs an interesting question: what extra utility does pearl have over paste? What greater value is there in a natural vs. artificial diamond? As with designer names, I think it comes back to status.

Elites don't go away, the distinction just becomes less and less meaningful. A few hundred years ago, being low status usually meant malnutrition, disease, filth. In 50 years we may all live better in many ways than today's billionaires, but the rich of that time will still have their status symbols.

TallDave wrote:That begs an interesting question: what extra utility does pearl have over paste? What greater value is there in a natural vs. artificial diamond? As with designer names, I think it comes back to status.

Yup.

The rare & hard to acquire versions that are available only to those of status.

TallDave wrote:Elites don't go away, the distinction just becomes less and less meaningful. A few hundred years ago, being low status usually meant malnutrition, disease, filth. In 50 years we may all live better in many ways than today's billionaires, but the rich of that time will still have their status symbols.

More than symbols. Reality. Those with the markers will BE rich. But different markers, yes. Nanotech or macrotech fabers will make material things as markers of status no longer relevant. Which will be an interesting psychological shift as the human mind is naturally oriented toward material object = value.

Maybe we will become a potlatch society. But in services.

The rich will wash the feet of the poor. Or some equivalent.

Kind of like the submissive controls the action in D&S games.

High status is not in material objects for humans any more than it is in animals. It is the "show" that counts. You can be as rich as a King but if the King doesn't invite you to court, well we know where you stand.

All we can say is that status objects and behaviors will evolve.

Take suntans. When everyone was working in the fields only the rich women had "white" skin. Now that few work in the fields a suntan is a sign of leisure. And an "over all tan" is a sign of leisure and the ability to buy privacy. Tanning beds may change that.

I looked up the Jane Jacobs book. Interesting.

I have feet firmly planted in both worlds. In fact the American "empire" is a strange hybrid of the two worlds. Maybe it is time for a new book.

This pdf has the essence plus excerpts.

http://www.thecommunitystore.com/pdf/re ... rvival.PDF

you can cross check the accuracy with the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival

MSimon wrote:Maybe we will become a potlatch society. But in services.

The rich will wash the feet of the poor. Or some equivalent.

Kind of like the submissive controls the action in D&S games.

A post-scarcity society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
http://www.orionsarm.com/civ/economics.html

The Star Trek Federation if you like quasifascist mind control societies. The counselors are nothing more than political officers with smiles.

And in real power the sub does not control. That is play, not reality.

If it is anything more than play for "show" the receivers of the largess (services) will revolt.

Revolt is not in the interests of the high status.

Maybe the high status will start Universities - Rockefeller. Maybe Medical Foundations - Gates. Services. Benefactors to mankind.

MSimon wrote:you can cross check the accuracy with the wiki

accuracy...wiki

pardon? (said with a french accent)

David_Jay wrote:

MSimon wrote:you can cross check the accuracy with the wiki

accuracy...wiki

pardon? (said with a french accent)

I find that the wiki is generally very good on subjects that do not generate controversy. One way to tell is to look at the editing history on a subject.

Simon

Duane,

Thanks for the hint about Jane Jacobs.

I gave you a hat tip:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... akers.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... taker.html

Simon,
Be prepared for a couple of months of some very good reading. Jacobs was one of the most insightful people around. After this book, read her three city books and then go and look a Chicago in a whole different way. I'm going to have to take a closer look at her newer books as they look very interesting.

Another thing to add is that while Jacobs legitimately attacks military procurement and engineering methods the real reason the smokestack industries took as large a hit as they did was the great increase in the Federal drain to fund such Progressive pets as the Great Society and the War On Drugs.

Jccarlton,

The books are going to have to wait a while (until I get a paying job).

Loved reading the ideas though.

BTW like all of us she has her blind spots.

Also I have done commercial and military work. Aerospace too. The mil and aerospace guys can't think economy. They really can't. The commercial guys don't pay enough attention to reliability and ease of use.

One of my favorite tricks was to show the mil/aeerospace guys how to cut 90% of the cost and 2/3s of the project time and still retain 99% of the function.

The commercial guys all too often focused on costs without considering customer satisfaction i.e. a .1% increase in costs could make a product 2X as attractive.

Oh, well.

Simon

MSimon wrote: I find that the wiki is generally very good on subjects that do not generate controversy.
Simon

First comment was with tongue firmly in cheek. I agree, if you want to find the formula for the surface area of a tetrahedron or something.

Any topic with even a hint of a policy implication is worse than useless. I remain amazed at the number of people who cite wiki as a source for politically sensitive information (can you say AGW?).