From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 1:22:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5849B37B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046BF43E65 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:22:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17l3WE-0004cT-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:22:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D707C6F.7C9AD09C@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:21:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208310617.g7V6Hu128152@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should > be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) > society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do > and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone acts as you would have them act? By what system? > > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. > > I claim you can't know that yardstick. Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive approximation, and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to using it instead. > It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to > demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to > be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve homeostasis. It's impossible to design a system that can do this, yet which has no feedback mechanisms. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message