Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (197114)	3/10/2023 2:43:08 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218195

NOPE.. does not at all depend upon circumstance .. A fundamental error... to fail to understand how "circumstance" or "the environment" matters... whether in ecology or economy... in culture, or in other elements in adaptive behavior... altruism is FAR FAR FAR more than charity .. I missed that part where I said altruism was "charity" ? do not confuse it [altrusim/charity ?] with socialism :) not the same animal ... Well, that's certainly true... socialism requires altruism just to exist... LOL !!! Yes, but I don't think that means what you think it means... I think it means... that to function at all... socialism depends on people "falling for it" while failing to understand it... thus willingly committing to error. And, you will fail to understand it, if failing in understanding that I noted before re "adaptation" (in our genes, or) in our culture, to "circumstance'... the environment... as being (often overly) forgiving in "plenty"... or, variably more demanding of us (and increasingly selective) in deepening range in "deficit". Otherwise... it is the "principle" behind the explanation (and limitations) of socialism as able to be "tolerated in good times" as "working" only "until it runs out of other people's money to spend"... Logic... does not allow reversing causality... to claim that if only we adopt economic systems that depend for their basic function on "good times" existing... that we can dictate only good times will exist ? Biology... matters ? And, we see that in humans and our choices. "Good times" make for fat, lazy people... who die more quickly... as a biological (not just human) imperative that uses the fat times to accelerate the pace in the turnover of generations... fostering the function of selective advantage across generational scales by accelerating the turnover. And, lean times... make for skinny people... who live longer... as the biological imperative shifts from "faster generational turnover" to "preserving genetic potential". That matters to you personally... as the reason for you NOT indulging to excess... "staying in shape"... and opting for trimming the ends off your telomeres a bit more slowly ? The examples I used are "fact based" and "human focused"... but also "pure" instances... in the sense of a "pure" focus on that element of "culture and the economy" in context of (and in relation to) "the natural environment" being what provides the "rule" in the selector. But, mine, purposefully, did not define "the environment" as limited to only "nature"? That's a big part of what I'm saying re [ignorance] and [better decisions] ? Existential risks arise, not only because another "dinosaur killer" comet or meteor impact might recur... but, also, because the issues in what nature requires of us in adaptation... are NOT the same in what "avoidance of existential risks" requires of us in relation to the pace of change in technology ? When you see technology altering... or being used in deliberately altering... some elements in culture... as [ignorant] people use that to seek "control" for themselves... despite [the ignorant] understanding nothing ? Does that matter ? The "technology" of our understanding [or not] of economics, and economic systems... fits within that same rubric ? Socialism is maladaptive. That's true of socialism as an economic system. But, even recognizing the errors in (and results of) bad economics imposed in consequence of adopting it... does not define any rational limit in the nature of risks imposed... by adopting the "errors in thinking" that allow adopting it ? Socialism is a symptom... not the disease. And, that is in no way in conflict with my mantra... "no difference between communists, capitalists, and kings... other than who gets to be king" ? Because, naturally... a functional technocratic society should be led... by the winner of Wrestlemania ? Or, otherwise, if that is too repulsive... let the ladies pick the guy off the cover of GQ ? Does it appear... perhaps our political systems functions are not designed with only "reason" in mind ? So, we should ignore them... and just impose whatever... pick your own dictator here... wants ? Probably, we should not be allowed to have this conversation... even if not having it means extinction ? You will note that means mine is not in disagreement with "catastrophism" in geology ? Space rocks exist... and they might hit us, on occasion ? And, it has me not disagree... in context of "climate catastrophism"... in principle ? It is not wrong... that being wrong about this, that, or the other... in our choices... might have us make... civilization ending errors ? One, for instance... in misunderstanding re "global warming"... so launching clouds of "space dust" to shield us from "excess heat from the sun"... to "defend us from the error" of allowing too much CO2 production... as we recycle carbon sequestered from geological storage of prior generations of plants back to the surface ? Yeah. There ARE morons who ARE doing that... without telling you or asking for your opinion... or holding any debate before acting... and it is far more likely to put us into a perpetual ice age... eliminating all plant life... than it is to "save us" from having the plants luxuriating in "too much CO2" ? You may opt to disagree with that... in my parsing of "environment" in its role(s) mediating our genes and culture (and economic choices)... and imposing "selective" pressures... or extinction... on individuals and systems... so, either in narrower terms of "economy" and "economic systems" providing advantage or predisposing us to failure... or in broader terms of species "survival" vs. "extinction"... But, it is a fundamental principle of biology... the definition of "survival of the fittest" parsed in more human than "biological" terms... So, in yours... yes, socialism depends on altruism... but, also, ignorance... some few therefore being made willing to fall on swords over it... because clueless [ignorant] people "mean well" in what they advocate. Is dying "valiantly" truly all that heroic... if it means duped into dying, stupidly, for "the wrong thing" ? .. (capitalism is required for it to flourish) but the converse is not true.. While correct... that's not an argument "for" anything beneficial... only a statement without justification claiming a right to dictate to other people... whose efforts have created a surplus... how they must use it ? How about... no. You may not have another grape. Go make your own surplus... learn how... and then, see what you learn from having it be your own effort... and not parasitical 'takings" or theft from others... that your survival depends upon ? Similar as "socialism" above... is a symptom... so is "entitlement"... ? A culture designed to maximize enjoyment of (others) surplus... probably won't survive without one ? We can hope. altruism can be totally without socialism .. any die hard anti socialist can be altruistic Altruism.... really has nothing at all to do with our choices in political or economic systems ? Although, our choices in (more or less functional or adaptive) political and economic systems have much to do with its social utility, or the lack of it ? It is an unrelated bit of human behavior... with a biological imperative... that has no rational linkage to anything outside of the "box" containing it and its origin for purpose ? Consider it an extreme outlier in the range of cooperative behaviors... as "team work" carried to a limit... in which context it makes sense to have the group survival prioritized ahead of the individuals interest in survival ? So, we have that in us... Which... doesn't do much to enable us in "making better decisions" ?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (197114)	3/10/2023 3:25:22 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218195

What should occur to you at some point... Is that "the rules" governing economics... however you choose to think about them... and whatever (incomplete / erroneous) construct you create in an attempted description of "reality"... while trying to not just describe what is... but to use that model to dictate what should be... ? That effort cannot succeed in that degree it errs... adopts error... and seeks to impose error as a "rule" ? And, thus are we ruled. "No difference between communists and kings"... is really NOT a statement made about economics ? And, the propaganda used to sell error... as necessary ? The "greater good"... defined by who... and benefits who ? It's the philosophical approximation of "the solution to pollution is dilution". Even in approximation... any effort tasked in "making tails wag dogs" cannot begin to describe reality... as long as it ignores the most basic lessons our survival to date REQUIRE be learned... not only as an academic exercise... but for us to have any hope of continuing to survive ? That approach... to defining what "economics" you adhere to... as advocate for Team A or Team B... or some fiction in maintenance of "correct" balances between them... might not actually contain anything that's useful in relation to what you are looking for... ? See that often enough, right ? "No difference between"... "the two parties"... or, as I note, Team A and Team B in what they are advocating for us in "economics"... that is not really about economics at all ? Given "no difference" exists between them... why does that require you declare that "hard won awareness" as an "accomplishment"... requiring one must surrender to the fact of it ? There's no curiosity that extends beyond that... ? Given they are NOT different... or, not enough to matter ? Why are they the same ? And, thus... what is the alternative in NOT that ? But, no point in addressing NOT that... while failing in seeing "what is" clearly enough to navigate ? If the "difference" that matters is not in "economics"... or Team A vs Team B... then, what is it ?