Re: do we need a master game manager?

["Jay Hanson" <j@qmail.com>]

From: <rverzola@mail.jca.ax.apc.org>

>I presume you are proposing that we allow ourselves to be managed like
>dogs and cats by a world government guided by science and religion
>which will presume it knows what is good for every living being in the
>world. This is the idea of a "master conductor" who makes sure that a
>complex system works well.

Essentially yes.  But if you define systems in normative terms such as
"good, bad" you are missing the point.  True human "needs" (as opposed
to "wants") are defined by our biology. For more on this issue in
context, see: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm

I agree with much you say in the rest of the post.  In the interests
of shortening these posts, let me see if I can get to our difference.

We both agree that individual behavior must change to bring about the
 desired systemic change.  Logically, the impetus could only come about
 by one of two means:
1.  Master conductor from the top-down -- my solution.
2. "Work it out like the intelligent human beings that we are, at the
    local level: identify the flawed rules of behavior which we've
    allowed to take over our lives in the past few centuries or so,
    and locality-by-locality, replace them with better rules of
    behavior." -- your solution

Your solution could come about by one of two means:
a.  Imposed by hardship -- but we would agree this is no "solution".
b.  Intelligent design by community members.

Correct me if I am wrong, "b" is your "solution" and the location of
 our difference.  I find "b" is literally impossible for a number of
 reasons:

-- "Emergent" systemic information is not even available to
individuals at the local level, it must be collected and distributed
at the top level.  The process of deciding what information to collect
and distribute itself constitutes "top down" control.

-- Individuals acting without simulation tools can not solve problems
in complex systems because they are "counter intuitive".[1]

-- In general, the human mind did not evolve to do science, it evolved
to detect violations of social norms.[2]  Moreover, "The ultimate goal
that the mind was designed to attain is maximizing the number of
copies of the genes that created it" [3] -- not to solve collective
social problems.

-- Something like 90 million Americans read below the 7th grade level.

Are we first going to teach the illiterate to read, and then to
understand complex systems?

--  Who will provide financial support so millions of people can quit
their jobs and devote their efforts to solving community problems?

--  How can local communities escape federal and international laws so
they can formulate their own?

The information concerning our precarious existence on this planet has
been known by scientists for many, many years.  If intelligent
planning were possible at the local level, we would be doing it now --
we aren't.

Jay
-------------
[1] URBAN DYNAMICS, by Jay Forrester, http://dieoff.com/page23.htm
THE LOGIC OF FAILURE, by Dietrich Dorner; 1989, Addison Wesley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201479486

[2]  This is the opposite of science:

 "Consider first a phenomenon I call the deontic effect in human
reasoning (Cummins, 1996b, 1996c). Deontic reasoning is reasoning
about rights and obligations; that is, reasoning about what one is
permitted, obligated, or forbidden to do (Hilpinen, 1981; Manktelow &
Over, 1991).  Deontic reasoning contrasts with indicative reasoning,
which is reasoning about what is true or false. When reasoning about
deontic rules (social norms), humans spontaneously adopt a violation-
detection strategy: They look for cheaters or rule-breakers. In contrast,
when reasoning about the truth status of statements about the world,
they spontaneously adopt a confirmation-seeking strategy. This effect
is apparent in the reasoning of children as young as three years of
age (Cummins, 1996a; Harris & Nuņez, 1996) and has been observed
in literally hundreds of experiments on adult reasoning over the course
of nearly thirty years, making it one of the most reliable effects in the
psychological literature (see Cummins, 1996b, 1996c,  and Oaksford
& Chapter, 1996 for reviews of this literature)." [pp. 39, 40,
THE EVOLUTION OF MIND, 1998, Oxford
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195110536

[3] p. 43, HOW THE MIND WORKS, by Steven Pinker; W.W. Norton, 1997
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393045358