[onlooker]

Ibon, almost no on is 'only a victim.'

I did not and would not say such a thing.

So if we can agree on that, then the alternatives are either that everyone has exactly the same level of culpability, or that some have more than others.

Where do you stand on that issue?

I like the analogy of the drug pusher and the drug addict. Certainly, we in that case would know who to assign more blame too. Well, not much different with what we are talking about here.

[vox_mundi]

Tragedy of the Commons ...

Game theory research reveals fragility of common resources

New research in game theory shows that people are naturally predisposed to over-use "common-pool resources" such as transportation systems and fisheries even if it risks failure of the system, to the detriment of society as a whole.

The ongoing research harnesses the Nash equilibrium, developed by Nobel laureate John Nash, whose life was chronicled in the film "A Beautiful Mind," and also applies "prospect theory," which describes how people make decisions when there is uncertainty and risk.

The research could have implications for the management of engineered systems such as the power grid, communications systems, distribution systems, and online file sharing systems, along with natural systems such as fisheries.

"The main theoretical framework we are using is the language of game theory, which concerns the analysis of decision making by multiple individuals when the benefits of their decisions depend on what other people are doing," Sundaram said. "At a Nash equilibrium, people selfishly select options that will yield the highest benefit for them, often to the detriment of their collective benefit."

In a society that tightly controls the use of resources, failure is less likely.

"This is why the notion of a Nash equilibrium ends up being key," he said. "The Nash equilibrium captures the idea that nobody is forcing you to do the right thing. You are doing just what you want to do to optimize your own benefit. If, however, it's a resource that is very carefully managed by a central authority, the failure probability is lower."

The researchers found that the resource has a higher likelihood of failure at the Nash equilibrium under prospect theory.

"This means human beings will over-utilize their resources, compared to what is predicted by classical models of decision making," Sundaram said.

In free societies, where people can exercise decisions based on their differing loss aversion, total use of a common resource is higher than otherwise.

Ashish R. Hota et al, Fragility of the commons under prospect-theoretic risk attitudes, Games and Economic Behavior (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2016.06.003

Nature or nurture: is violence in our genes?

Nature or nurture? Are we innately violent, as Englishman Thomas Hobbes postulated in the 1650s, or is our behaviour influenced more by the environment we grow up in, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau theorised a century later?

On Tuesday, a team of scientists who looked at the question from a new angle—that of evolutionary biology—concluded that our violent nature was at least partly inherited from an ancient ancestor, and shared with other primates.

Lethal violence appears to be "deeply rooted" in the lineage of monkeys, apes and Homo sapiens

This, in turn, suggests that "a certain level of lethal violence in humans arises from the occupation of a position within a particularly violent mammalian clade."

A clade is the biological term for a group of organisms descending from a common evolutionary ancestor.

The Spanish researchers gathered data on more than four million deaths in 1,024 present-day mammal species, as well as 600-plus human populations from the late Stone Age some 50,000-10,000 years ago until today. The animals sampled represent some 80 percent of mammal families.

The researchers looked specifically at the proportion of deaths caused by lethal violence perpetrated by a member of the same species—in humans this was war, homicide, infanticide, execution and other intentional killings. They also searched for similarities between species with common ancestors, which they used to infer how violent those predecessors would have been, and to reconstruct a history of ancestral killing rates.

Overall, the researchers found, intraspecies killing was the cause of about 0.3 percent of mammal deaths.

But for the ancestor of all primates, rodents and hares, killings caused about 1.1 percent of deaths, rising to 2.3 percent for the next, more recent, common ancestor of primates and tree shrews.

By the time the common human ancestor first appeared around 200,000-160,000 years ago, the rate was about two percent—similar to that for other primates, the team found.

"This means that humans have phylogenetically inherited their propensity for violence," they wrote.

"In fact, social behaviour and territoriality, two behavioural traits shared with relatives of (Homo) sapiens, seem to have also contributed to the level of lethal violence... inherited in humans," said the study.

Commenting on the study, Mark Pagel of the University of Reading said it provided "good grounds for believing that we are intrinsically more violent than the average mammal."

[Ibon]

I like the analogy of the drug pusher and the drug addict. Certainly, we in that case would know who to assign more blame too. Well, not much different with what we are talking about here.

Your analogy Onlooker makes the drug addict a passive victim which is why it is a poor analogy. The issue here when it comes to culpability on how we got into this ecology trap is that almost all the drug addicts would like nothing more than being the drug pusher themselves.

The ambition is universal, across all cultures, races, ethnic groups, socio-economic background. That one may be more exponentially wealthy or wield more influence and power is secondary to the fact that there is an endless supply of those desiring to take their place. I think it was Newfie that pointed this out.

Targeting the wealthy with culpability without recognizing the universal nature of the ambition is as I said too simplistic.

[dohboi]

"ll the drug addicts would like nothing more than being the drug pusher themselves"

This is, of course, the ideology of the drug pusher, and a very convenient ideology for him it is!

https://datingasociopath.com/2013/06/08 ... -themself/

Of course, it's beyond just convenient. In order to rationalize their utter moral depravity, the elites always have to convince themselves that the oppressed would act exactly toward them the way they react to the oppressed, or worse.

Obviously, in some revolutions there were some pretty bad reprisals.

But mostly, history does not bear this out. I have never heard that freed slaves tried to then find ways to enslave whites. Or lynch them. Or exclude them from certain water fountains...

The basic (im-)moral (il-)logic is basically that of the depraved excuse of the frat boy who rapes the unconscious girl--"If I don't do it, somebody else will."

[onlooker]

Yes I agree with Dohboi. Here is my take Ibon why I and dohboi are adamant about this. Would most people like to be wealthy, well maybe but I am not convinced about that. Let us say though yes. Okay, but that does not mean that most people would wish to be the engineers and designers of a world that is perversely and insatiably about greed and money. A world where the profit motive reigns supreme over all other considerations including the life and well being of all living creatures present and future. Well that is the world the elites established, that is the world they continuously and incessantly prop up and nourish with the focus on Consumerism and greed. Don't believe it, look at the Environmentalists being murdered, the whistleblowers being jailed etc. Furthermore, to safeguard these profits and power, all sorts of horrific deeds are done including war, torture and yes lying to the masses about the grave threat of releasing into the atmosphere all the CO2 we have. Exxon lied about it. So in summary would the majority of people signed on board to construct and nurture this type of world we live in? I say no. It has been a particular brand of humans intoxicated with power lust and greed that together thought out and executed their plans for our planet.

[dohboi]

" that does not mean that most people would wish to be the engineers and designers of a world that is perversely and insatiably about greed and money. A world where the profit motive reigns supreme over all other considerations including the life and well being of all living creatures present and future. "

Nicely put.

Not every time, but often enough, native peoples have been offered large amounts of money to relinquish their rights to sacred lands that they technically still have rights to be treaty. These are generally very poor people, and the dominant paradigm would assume that they would accept such large pay outs, since there is little chance that they're ancient treaty rights will ever actually be recognized. The rich can't understand such things, and just call them 'irrational' and worse. But there are in fact other value systems in the world besides the one that says, "I want to have all the toys in the store."

[onlooker]

Dohboi, that is funny because it really is to the native people around the world a different philosophy. One that is much saner and stands the test of time. Here is the quote from an Indian proverb "When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money"

[Ibon]

" that does not mean that most people would wish to be the engineers and designers of a world that is perversely and insatiably about greed and money. A world where the profit motive reigns supreme over all other considerations including the life and well being of all living creatures present and future. "

Nicely put.

Not every time, but often enough, native peoples have been offered large amounts of money to relinquish their rights to sacred lands that they technically still have rights to be treaty. These are generally very poor people, and the dominant paradigm would assume that they would accept such large pay outs, since there is little chance that they're ancient treaty rights will ever actually be recognized. The rich can't understand such things, and just call them 'irrational' and worse. But there are in fact other value systems in the world besides the one that says, "I want to have all the toys in the store."

According to many of my former business associates I made a very irrational decision when I pulled the plug on the world of commerce and came down here to Panama and invested money in creating a private reserve. My exceptional action is exactly the exception that proves the rule. As is Dohboi's example of indigenous culture resisting selling their land. If we were arguing that humans can't do this then both Dohboi's example and my own actions would be proof otherwise. But let's put aside a moment our own moral positions and actually look at the vast cultural landscape, nation states, language groups, religions, ethnic and racial communities around the planet and see how they have fared in resisting the consumption machine that these so called evil elites have set up. All of this planet's inhabitants wanting to materially progress from their first washing machine up to cars and homes and plane rides etc. etc.

A weird Ibon going off to Panama or an indigenous culture here and there that held onto to their tradition over consumption is not making your case. Not when you put this side by side with the thrust of humanity embracing consumption culture.

I am not pessimistic about this changing. I actually believe that a strong bounce back toward traditional values and community and more sustainable life styles isn't that far off on the other side of consequences. I am only observing where we are now, at this moment, and most of worlds inhabitants have swallowed the consumption bait hook line and sinker..... still this late in the game.

[Ibon]

Dohboi, that is funny because it really is to the native people around the world a different philosophy. One that is much saner and stands the test of time. Here is the quote from an Indian proverb "When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money"

The very last remaining HG cultures free of consumption culture are as close to extinction as are tigers or orangutans. The vast majority of indigenous cultures that survived genocide have been put in reservations and have experienced cultural degradation due to poor diets and alcohol. There are a few but very few, bright spots on the condition of indigenous culture today in the world.

Onlooker, you quoting indigenous philosophy, I as much as you do embrace the wisdom of these words. Words that fall far short of the actual conditions most indigenous cultures experience today.

[dohboi]

"I actually believe that a strong bounce back toward traditional values and community and more sustainable life styles isn't that far off"

I hope you're right.

[Ibon]

For Onlooker and others who can understand spanish...... In Costa Rica, the model country that promotes eco tourism and conservation, is launching a new 200 million dollar mall next year called Oxigen.... It will accommodate 55 thousand shoppers and they are promoting this as a Human Playground where art, music, green space and "community" can be integrated into the shopping and eating venues. Partially powered by a few solar panels on the roof.

http://www.revistasumma.com/se-construi ... del-mundo/

Se trata de OXÍGENO, primer y único Human Playground a nivel mundial. Un espacio en el que cada individuo podrá conectarse con su esencia, a través de la integración de entretenimiento, el deporte, la gastronomía, las compras, la comunidad y los espacios verdes.

Oxígeno ofrece una dinámica comercial única e innovadora en Costa Rica y en el mundo, con gran potencial para replicarse en otros mercados. Es un novedoso e innovador concepto que revoluciona la experiencia de esparcimiento a través de dimensiones como la cultura, la comunidad y el aprendizaje.

The comodification of "community", "green space", sustainability, etc. proceeds unabated around the world.

Sure, some evil rich dude thought up this concept but let's just sit back and watch it fill up to capacity on opening day!

You guys really want to blame the rich for this?

[dohboi]

"some evil rich dude thought up this concept"

You said it, bro, not me!

[Tanada]

Ibon of course they do! If they can lay all the blame on the "rich" or the "elites" instead of acknowledging the people they vote for and put into office foster those "rich" and "elite" people then they can separate themselves from the consequences of their votes.

USA for good or ill is a democratic republic where the voters decide who leads. The politicians have divided themselves up into 'pro-business' claims (republican) and Anti-rich claims (democrats) in their rhetoric, but the reality is they all belong to club of Elites and 99 percent of them work every day to maintain that club for their own personal benefit.

In terms of the technology trap, the elites have been working to reduce the influence of Joe6P and Jane6P for generations. Vast swaths of laborers have been priced out of the market squeezed by automation on one side and globalism labor wage pressure on the other side. I see lots of technotopia stories popping up in the media about driverless cars and wonder advances in soar energy technology all of which completely ignore the double edge cost involved. The latest one I just read is about driverless dump trucks for large open cast mines. Basically eliminating 80 percent of the remaining work force in the mining industry if this change gets pushed through. The double edge is, who is going to pay for this new technology? and Where is the energy to power this new technology going to come from?

The world population today is becoming less and less employed due to technology, while at the same time energy to power that technology is getting herder and harder to extract. You have to be some sort of starry eyed utopian to believe the automation revolution will supply all the basic needs of 8 Billion humans who will be living in the lap of luxury with no opportunity to work even if they want too.

[Ibon]

Ibon of course they do! If they can lay all the blame on the "rich" or the "elites" instead of acknowledging the people they vote for and put into office foster those "rich" and "elite" people then they can separate themselves from the consequences of their votes.

Some of you are familiar with some of my rants on the grip cyber reality has on humanity in the way it eclipses organic reality. Of course this is only the most mature manifestation of something that started back with television and how slowly american culture became socialized through the conduit of dumbed down media and entertainment. Trump is the embodiment of this and truth be told there is a huge percentage of Americans that enjoy seeing American politics reduced to what feels and looks and sounds like an episode of The Jerry Springer Show.

So this reality is the fault of the corporate media elties is what Dohboi would have us believe and the American voter is simply as powerless as beef cattle in the feedlot 40 days before heading to the slaughterhouse?

[Ibon]

In terms of the technology trap, the elites have been working to reduce the influence of Joe6P and Jane6P for generations. Vast swaths of laborers have been priced out of the market squeezed by automation on one side and globalism labor wage pressure on the other side. I see lots of technotopia stories popping up in the media about driverless cars and wonder advances in soar energy technology all of which completely ignore the double edge cost involved. The latest one I just read is about driverless dump trucks for large open cast mines. Basically eliminating 80 percent of the remaining work force in the mining industry if this change gets pushed through. The double edge is, who is going to pay for this new technology? and Where is the energy to power this new technology going to come from?

In a healthy eco system you have predator prey dynamics, parasites, pathogens, decomposition, growth, competition, cooperation, a complex web of life and death and recycling that is as much about symbiosis as it is tooth and claw. A functioning economic system should mirror this dynamic. Unfortunately our global economic system no longer is recycling and churning in this way. It is flowing in one direction and the average citizen is being sapped and sucked dry.

I think we are close to an inflection point finally. We have been wrong about this in the past and when it seems things cant possibly become more dysfunctional low and behold they actually do! So I am not holding my breath. There is a disintegration happening that is slowly reaching a breaking point BUT the capacity of the average citizen to eat the shit that is fed them and delude themselves that it tastes like chocolate has been underestimated repeatedly again and again.

So where is the breaking point here?

[dohboi]

T wrote: "If they can lay all the blame"

OMG. Again, no one, not me at least, is saying one side or the other has ALL the blame.

Perhaps this continual misrepresentation of the side you opposed does suggest something, though--that it is the only way you can construct an argument that sounds even marginally plausible.

It doesn't speak well for your position if the only way you can maintain it is by constantly creating strawmen for it to easily knock down.

...

And of course at the end you wind up undermining your own claim and supporting ours:

"The world population today is becoming less and less employed due to technology"

Right.

Did the 'masses' develop this technology? No, a tiny group of specialists did, supported by money of elites. But it will massively destroy the livelihoods of workers.

Yet you want to place a good portion of the blame for this on those workers?

And your earlier point reinforces our point, too. We have a putative 'democracy,' but mostly the only folks that have the money to run for office are themselves elites, or are the creations/creatures of the elites.

Sooo, you start with a strawman, but then can't even manage to knock him down, and instead use arguments that tend to support it rather than knock it down.

The Rationalization is strong in this one!

[onlooker]

So where is the breaking point here?

The breaking point is related to when the entire socioeconomic/political system is not able provide for the security and/or basic necessities of a substantial portion of the population. The people themselves are powerless as they cannot effectively alter the direction our societies are going. Only when the System has completely broken down will people regain sovereignty over their lives. At that point of course the conditions of life will be precarious at best. This is the reality that is difficult to face but is staring at us squarely. The one thing that seems inevitable is that the System will break down. When? Who knows. But I do not envision more than 20 years of BAU

[jerry_mcmanus]

Funny, this is sort of what the movie "Logan's Run" was about. Can a technologically advanced society live within the carrying capacity of its habitat, even an artificial habitat? Maybe, but it would probably require a very obedient population willing to completely forgo reproductive rights and willing, nay even HAPPY to march right into an early death.

The ending of the movie was telling, the protagonists discovered a whole world outside the domed cities that had returned to a sort of garden of Eden once it had been freed from the burden of human overpopulation.

They promptly freed the other people from their "technology trap", presumably to start breeding like rabbits again...

[Ibon]

Sooo, you start with a strawman, but then can't even manage to knock him down, and instead use arguments that tend to support it rather than knock it down.

I think it was you who singled out the educated wealthy as culpable a few pages back. This is not a binary choice. As I see it culpability is multi faceted and spread pretty evenly across the whole spectrum of religions, cultures, nation states and socio economic background. That is all I have ever claimed. Something universal in the hive mind of modern humans.

40 years ago I remember well how easy it was in those early days to single out WASP and wealthy white imperialist americans. Back then when white America dominated the cultural and economic landscape. It is not so easy today to single out one group, one race, one socio economic group, one nation, one ethnic or
language group.

Back then before China and India emerged when their ancient cultural traditions and religions seemed to represent an exotic and totally different paradigm. Back then when the soviet union structured itself differently. Back then when there seemed to be more viable cultural choices and models.


How ubiquitous across the whole globe that we now see the current consumer based economic system underscores an underlying appetite and vulnerability, call it ambition, that has to date not really presented any resistance or viable options.

The fact that Onlooker for example has to reach for an almost extinct indigenous philosophy really does prove the point.

If culpability was primarily in the domain of the wealthy elite then surely we would have seen greater resistance or viable alternatives by now.

If it is further true that the masses have been misled and duped into submission by the powerful propaganda tools of the wealthy elite in the form of advertisements then even in this case I wouldn't lay the culpability on to the wealthy.

Surely a population permitting themselves to be duped shares equally the responsibility for their position. This is probably the source of why we come back and repeatedly debate this.

I see the willingness of the masses to accept and live mediocre lives as making them equally culpable as the wealthy puppet masters. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of these masses are compromising themselves with aspirations to increase rather than decrease their dependency on the system that exploits them.

The poor masses of exploited humans all clustering around their TV's, digital devices and shopping venues. Cruely exploited by a cynical and educated wealthy elite.

Look around. They seem awfully content.

[Ibon]

But I do not envision more than 20 years of BAU

If you are tuned into the social collective you can sense a pressure. It's like a social barometer that measures conformity pressures at all times in the masses. How close they are to an inflection point of rebellion and revolution. It is palpable. I can sense this when I move through the physical and media landscapes. We are no where near any kind of crystallized rebellion beyond some mild rumblings out there at the moment. The masses are firmly in the grips of the wealthy elite. In this stupefied state you cannot pinpoint culpability.

The breaking point has been up until today like a mirage in the desert, visible 5 or 10 or 20 year ahead ahead but fades away as the years pass when you think you are reaching it, only once again to find the mirage on the horizon, 5 or 10 or 20 years away. And so it goes, on and on.

I see nothing changing this. Not peak oil, not climate change, not economic collapse. The masses actually are still very very content and don't want to rock the boat. They might drop their Iphones in the water!