To: Wim and Platt and any others interested in Social Progress
From: Rog
Wim,
Yes, I agree that there will always be relative differences in quality
between societies and individuals within a society. And I agree that
relative rankings -- from high to low -- on power, wealth, education, health,
freedom, etc will always be a zero sum game. Rankings are zero sum. I also
agree that status is a dynamic driver toward more social quality. I have
absolutely no qualms with any of this. But I miss the point.
The potential benefits delivered through social quality are a better
education, more opportunity, better health care and medicine, better quality
of life, enhanced ability to influence/experience reality (to travel, fly,
live in a comfortable house in a safe environment, scuba dive, see movies,
drive motorcycles across country, sail boats, read/write great books),
better nutrition, enhanced lifespan, etc etc etc. Yes, there are bound to be
relative winners and losers in your global ranking, where some outstanding
nation has more of these than another. This isn't a problem though, as (we
agree) it can drive the lower to emulate and catch up to the higher status
nation, producing more of the benefits of society in the process.
Social quality does progress. Social quality can be created. Social quality
is a positive sum process.
Your opening argument reminds me of those that argue that evolution doesn't
progress, for the obvious (and correct) reasoning that the environment of
surrounding and competing species (including others of one's own species)
evolves along with the direct lineage in question. In other words, evolution
is the struggle for life and replication, yet the environment evolves along
the same potential pace. This is known as the Red Queen effect -- you run
faster and faster just to stay in the same place. Millions of years later,
your progeny don't necessarily live longer or reproduce more successfully.
On a relative dimension, evolution is not progressive along the dimension
which life strives. HOWEVER, in the process of competing and finding new
strategies to survive, replicate and run faster, life creates all sorts of
incredible solutions. It creates eyes, feet, hearts, wings, emotions,
mothers, pleasures, foresights, thoughts...it creates the wonder and splendor
and quality of life. Evolution CAN lead to progress, even though every
generation has a similar spread of biological winners and losers.
In the same way, social quality CAN lead to progress along various dimensions
while relative social rankings/status are always zero sum. People and
nations strive for status and power and though any relative gain comes only
at the cost of relative losses, at an absolute level, quality marches
forward. The Red Queen effect leads to constant striving in a zero sum game
that creates valuable, positive sum aspects of social quality.
Oversimplifying a bit, there are two distinct ways to look at one's
situation. One can compare or rank oneself against others(nationally or
globally or locally or whatever), with the goal being to BEAT the other guys.
The alternative is to evaluate how well one is doing as compared to how well
one could have done if he/she had done something differently. In other
words...
We can rate vs others, or
We can rate vs an ideal or a potential.
Relative ranking/rating approach is indeed zero sum. And with a zero sum
view of the world it is easy to lapse into the low quality position of
gaining relative status by taking from another or from lowering quality for
another. This is evil. This is immorality. This is the path toward
destructiveness that we all warned against in pursuit of high quality. (Santa
Fe Complexity guru/Game Theorist Robert Axelrod finds the relative ranking
view to be one of the key destroyers of cooperation and quality)
The alternative is of course to raise one's self, or better yet to cooperate
with others to rise up together. As I am sure you would agree, the mature and
responsible person doesn't look at other's accomplishments and want to tear
them down. They don't look at high quality around themselves and lose their
sense of dignity and self worth, they see it and envision and emulate success
to bring similar quality into their own lives. A mature and moral person
embraces comparison to learn and elevate, not to despise, fester and destroy.
To summarize, it is critical to identify the factors that lead to better
social quality (which I have attempted in previous posts). Further, we
certainly shouldn't give up on social quality because of our capacity to rank
nations/people by status. A strict zero sum view of quality leads one
nowhere. A positive sum view opens up our ability to progress across greater
and greater depth and span.
In the end, I agree with your conclusion that we should be "interested in
social patterns of value that need less status differentiation...", though I
would probably expand it to recommend that we recognize that sovial quality
can improve upon many dimensions even as relative status differences remain.
Let me know if I make sense, and please share where you agree as well as
where you see weaknesses in my argument. I always learn a lot from you.
Rog
PS -- Please read "Non Zero" by Wright, and "The Evolution Of Cooperation" by
Axelrod. I would really value your critiques, and you will find much more
eloquent explanations that mirror many of my views on social quality. (If you
only read one, read Wright)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:46 BST