Hi Wim!
Wim,
Am I mistaken, or was your first 5 pages a scolding for my forgetfulness?
Sorry again. I have the absolute and unmitigated worst memory of anyone that
I ever (remember) meeting with. And yes, I can recreate a fresh solution
every time I look at a complex issue. Some say this is a sign of exceptional
creativity -- others say I was probably dropped too often as a baby. Go
figure!
In light of your feedback, I agree to modify and elaborate my answer to 1 and
1a as below.
'1. How to define the path of a society toward absolute quality (social
progress)?'
'By the quality produced at all levels across the greatest span and depth.
'1a. By what method should we define that path?'
'The path cannot be defined in advance,
but our past experience and current
knowledge can help us to identify some
of the higher quality likely paths. The
next step is to evaluate whether we ARE
on the path. Here the judge is the sum
total of our experience.'
I agree with your commentary on the issue that we need competing intellectual
theories of progress. Furthermore, I agree with your Feb 2nd posting that
better solutions will be more inclusive and that they will contain a drive
toward something better. I suppose we could be wrong though. Experience will
be our judge.
The difference between us is that I am sketching a very broad outline, and
you are being much more specific. I tend to agree with your starting
methodology, it is just that I am reluctant to solidify so much specific
theory into my methodology.
'1b. What path follows from applying that method?'
'The path of dynamic experimentation and constant striving for better
quality. The preferred path needs to be able to lock in past successes yet
remain open to continuous creative design and redesign.'
WIM:
It seems to me that you just rephrase the 'method' and don't describe a path
(or 'some of the higher quality likely paths') of social progress.
I'd suggest you to try to describe paths of primary and secondary social
progress for specific social patterns of values and additionally paths of
primary intellectual progress to the extent that this 'mediates' these two
types of social progress.
ROG:
I find value in your methodology. Within a society, the highest quality will
maximize positive sum interactions and minimize negative sum interactions.
The peaceful competition between social solutions provides a necessary
benchmark process and serves to further drive continuous improvement. (I
would even be willing to add these last two sentences to my answer in 1b)
'1bI. What is the best intellectual pattern of values with which to judge
the balance between stability and versatility of a social pattern of
values?'
'Empiricism -- by the results that the pattern creates and by our
experiences with its adaptability and resilience.'
WIM:
It seems to me that you are still only rephrasing the method and not
describing a path, in this case the path of primary intellectual progress.
ROG:
Because I started out by saying we can't predict it in advance. We can only
make informed guesses. I am reluctant to commit to much more; however, I
strongly endorse studying past progress. I agree that conventional ways of
thinking today have trouble recognizing quality -- it is like a cultural
blind spot -- my focus on empiricism does indeed echo a view compatible with
the MOQ (though not in any way dependent).
WIM:
I'd suggest to go on by describing the fundamental changes applying a MoQ
would imply in relevant (for global society) systems of ideas like
international law, macro-economics and the (economic) theory of
international economic relations. I made first moves (which you didn't
appreciate) by suggesting the institution of universal rights to 'dignity'
(to 'be able to uphold one's intellectual values')
ROG:
Here you are clearly drifting away from the methodology and toward specific,
testable theories.
WIM:
... to 'freedom' (to 'be
able to influence reality') and to 'equality' (to 'be equally able to
influence reality as others that share that same reality'). (Please note:
UNIVERSAL rights, not just applicable in modern liberal democracies and to
be equally ABLE to influence reality, not to be equally influential if they
choose to be lazy or dumb ...) I'll return to my suggestions in due course
in order to try to enhance your appreciation of them, but for the moment I
ask you to formulate your alternative suggestions.
ROG:
My opening suggestions for testable ideas based upon past success is that we
find ways to export modern liberal free enterprise democracy.
'1bII. How can that balance of a given social pattern of values be enhanced
(more than without our intellectual intervention)?'
'By setting up systems that are free and dynamic and that strive to
progress. ... distributed control is needed as well as central command. ...
cooperation is needed as well as constant higher-level competition. ...
win/win (mutually beneficial) interactions lead to self organizing systems
of higher quality at progressively higher emergent levels.'
WIM:
I agree. Can you please proceed by
1) clarifying how you apply your answer to question 1bI here and
2) applying this very general answer to question 1bII explicitly to global
society?
ROG:
By finding ways to export modern liberal free enterprise democracy. At the
same time, those already "there "must find even more ways to reduce
inequality of opportunity, to reduce environmental destruction, to tame the
excesses of technology etc.
'2. Is society making progress along that path?'
'Yes. Almost every measure of social and biological quality (health, wealth,
democracy, freedom, education, lifespan, yield of nutrition per acre) has
gone up in virtually every continent -- especially in the last 50 years.
Intellectual progress has been even more dramatic -- at least in the
direction of science. There is of course no shortage of problems still
needing to be addressed, and many of these problems are as a result of
progress. Environmental stress, overpopulation, overly rapid change, an
absence of meaning as religion is discarded and not replaced, inequality,
weapons of mass destruction, 3rd world cultures with first world technology.
These need to be solved next, but we need to acknowledge that solutions
inevitably lead to new problems and new unrealized opportunities.'
WIM:
My gut feeling too is that global society is making progress. However, I
find it difficult to rationally evaluate (thereby justifying that gut
feeling) whether the positive absolute value of the AVERAGE primary social
and intellectual progress really outweighs the negative absolute value of
the UNEVENNESS and INEQUITABILITY of the distribution of the results
compared to people's contribution (and ability to contribute) to that
progress. My moral intuition is, that people should benefit equitably from
(global) progress compared to their contribution to it TO THE EXTENT THAT
they have had a choice whether to contribute more or less. The global
playing field is very much tilted in favor of the already wealthy and
powerful as a result of the global social pattern of values which I
described 23/9 23:51 +0200 and (with Sam's help) 25/9 23:00 +0200:
'Wherever an initial dose of good luck or (even marginal) merit gives a
geographically differentiated part of a society an advantage over the rest
of the society, the difference tends to grow rather than diminish over time.
As a Dutch saying goes: "De duivel schijt altijd op de grote hoop." (The
devil always shits on the big pile.)' and 'Mt 13.12 - "For to him who has
will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not,
even what he has will be taken away."'
R:
The areas that have improved the most in the past century are those that were
the farthest behind.
ILLITERACY -- dropped from 75% in developing countries for babies born in
1900 to 20% in 2000
LIFESPAN -- Increased from less than 30 to around 65 over the same time
period
CHILD MORTALITY -- Estimates are that 2 out of 5 kids died in developing
countries before reaching their 5th birthday. That number is down to 1 in 16
now.
STARVATION -- As recently as 1970, 35% of people in Developing countries were
starving. It is down to 18% now and still dropping quickly.
To be honest, to look at these (mostly UN) trends and not see progress
because of economic inequality seems somewhat pompous. At least their kids
are still alive!
Further, the definition of developing countries changed during the century.
Quite a few countries adopted democracy and free enterprise and progressed to
a better category (Taiwan, Korea, etc). And if that isn't enough, the
problem has never been that some moved forward and others moved back. The
problem is that some moved forward and some moved hardly at all. Those that
moved hardly at all tended to be run by exploitative dictators, communists
and theocracies. But I could be wrong...
WIM:
My impression is that making the global playing field more even is more
urgent than boosting average primary social progress and that further
primary intellectual progress should be directed mainly toward this goal.
Global terrorism is -for me- a case in point supporting this impression.
R:
Yes, if that means exporting the tools that apparently contributed to
success. No, if that means limiting progress in those that didn't listen to
Marx, Allah or Gueverra.
W:
nyhow, I think we need to differentiate between the different types of
progress and the different social patterns of values that hold global
society together to really, rationally, evaluate whether (global) society is
really making social progress. Could you give it a try?
R:
See above. Nobody wants dead, starving or illiterate kids.
W:
I do not disagree with your answer, but I think it oversimplifies things by
ignoring the patterns of values (social and intellectual ones) that connect
progressive and stagnant/retarded cultures.
... requires an answer that NOT ONLY focuses on the
barriers to progress that are internal to stagnant/retarded cultures but
ALSO to the barriers that are external to these cultures and the barriers
that are implied by the fact that cultures
Could you try to refine and improve your answer to this question with this
in mind?
R:
I agree that we must not support the tools of their oppression. That is why
we must be VERY careful of foriegn aid. It can cover up fundamental problems
and delay root cause correction.
W:
My issue with (global) capitalism is mainly its role in
giving more to him who has and taking away from him who has not. Capitalism
doesn't only need rules, regulations, systems and constraints to prevent
reversion to 'the chaos of mutual exploitation aka "the law
of the jungle"'. Even if it functions optimally, it accumulates the benefits
of social progress NOT ONLY with those that have contributed to it BUT ALSO
with those that by accident of history are born on the right place and in
the right times to benefit from infrastructure, ingrained culture and other
'piles of shit' left by the devil. Capitalism systematically passes over
those that would have contributed if they could in the distribution of the
benefits it produces and does nothing to enable them to contribute more in
the future.
R:
No, moderated capitalism has created the a wider distribution of wealth and
opportunity than any other system. Those that you see as victims I see
primarily as non participants.
W:
I have no obvious alternative. Centrally commanded socialism IN THEORY
remedies this defect of capitalism and -when judiciously combined with
market mechanisms- needs not be less successful in terms of primary social
progress, BUT IN PRACTICE (under pressure of secondary social competition)
reverts much too easily to pre-capitalist oppressive cultural patterns
(Stalinism was a reversion to Tsarism, Maoism was a reversion to
pre-revolution Chinese imperial patterns). Centrally commanded socialism on
a world scale, with a central command subject to a system of democratic
elections, MIGHT escape this fate of reversion (because there has not yet
been an oppressive cultural pattern on a global scale to revert to), but I
am not very inclined to take the risk.
R:
It seems a bit risky to take a chance on a system that bats "0.00"
Especially considering chaos and complexity theory pretty much prove that it
can't even work in principle. (And what kind of free election leads to the
confiscation of all mechanisms of production?)
W:
My intuition is that reducing global inequality (of distribution of results
of primary social progress) in order to take away some of the occasion to
global terrorism may require successful cultures to become less competitive
(in the context of secondary social progress, not necessarily in the context
of secondary intellectual progress). Why can't successful economies like
that of the USA or of the Netherlands/European Union not open up more
generously to imports from less developed countries without demanding
reciprocity if they are inventive enough to provide their outcompeted
farmers, employees in low-technology industry etc. with alternative
employment? Why can't they accept government regulations in less developed
countries against profit repatriation on direct investments (enforcing
re-investment) if this induces the devil to spread his excrements more
evenly?
Mind you: this would have to be a voluntary renunciation from
competitiveness on the part of these successful economies, not something to
be enforced by some sort of global government!
R:
Here I agree in principle, though I would offer that profit repatriation can
backfire and lead to unintended and unpleasant results.
W:
What would you think about global capitalism tempered by voluntary restraint
inspired/mediated by an intellectual pattern of values stressing long-term
global common interests (like preventing a pattern of global terrorism) that
in turn is inspired/mediated by some replacement for traditional religion
(lending Meaning to renunciation of short-term national interests)?
R:
I would support trying it.
W:
I guess you will agree that global safety nets requires sticking to
international agreements on a minimal level of (OECD defined) Official
Development Aid (excluding military aid and aid to relatively advanced
countries like Israel) and considerably raising this minimum level. Maybe we
even need a global system of taxation, organized by UN agencies, to
circumvent the breaking of international agreements by notorious laggards
like Italy and the USA.
R:
No. I recommend careful distribution of aid with requirements that it be
accompanied by democracy and free enterprise. I don't trust a centralized
bureaucracy here.
W:
This is still no real answer to the question though. That requires
distinguishing different types of global inequality and of different social
patterns of values holding together global society. Could you give that a
try? Maybe we could take Israel and its neighbors as an example? What types
of inequality exist in that region and what social patterns of values
(potentially) hold together these peoples and prevent all-out war and
destruction?
R:
OK
Rog
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 - 16:02:11 BST