Re: do we need a master game manager?

["Marasigan . Vicente" <vic@pusit.admu.edu.ph>]

On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Jay Hanson wrote:

> 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
> 
-------------

Essentially then, the point is that systems defined in normative terms
such as "good, bad" must now be defined instead by norms such as
biological needs. There are biologists and biologists and they compete
with one another about how they understand the needs of biological
systems.  One eminent biologist, Dr. Lyall Watson, a very prolific
writer about science and scientists, sees the elements of a biological
system from the perspective of optimizing fitness for survival, where
survival is understood not merely of the individual but survival of
the evolving phenotype. But if biological survival is itself a myth,
if biological survival is doomed to entropic death, why make biology
normative for defining "system"? Why have "systems"  at all?

This new definition of "systems" cannot be obtained by democratic
referendum and therefore must be enforced by a master conductor.  A
master conductor cannot emerge from democratic election and can only
become a master conductor by "coercion", perceived as partisan
politics where ends justify means, including violent means, including
carrot and stick, including avarice and terrorism.

Essentially, is this the point?  Then essentially, I am terrorized.

--------------

> 
> 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:
> 
---------

Extremely difficult but not literally impossible.  The 6 reasons
alleged are debatable.  But perhaps debate can become
counter-productive.  I do appreciate the positive function of debates
between an affirmative and a negative side.  They sometimes stimulate
collaboration in implementing creative insights.

I am grateful to Jay and Roberto for the wealth of insights they are
contributing.  I hope this wealth will someday "trickle down" to the
schoolchildren now in kindergarten.  Would 30 years be too short for
that trickle-down process?

Vicente Marasigan