Democracy and evolution

[Paul Paryski]

Historically it is ironic that the most democratic countries seem to be the  
most homogenous and mono cultural, e.g. the Scandinavian countries.   Perhaps,
as Jared Diamond concluded, the most important characteristic of a  
successful society is its ability to choose, democratically or  otherwise, adaptive
management strategies when faced with change or  challenges.
 
Paul Paryski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061207/945f0a3f/attachment-0001.html

[Phil Henshaw-2]

I think that's what we're talking about, the question of what makes a
community naturally resourceful in responding to change, and what makes
it dead and senseless.   I see both happening right here, for example.
It seems to be the *ability to be guided by* a diversity of views that
allows discovery to be commonplace rather than disruptive, and enables
the community to navigate a complex reality uneventfully.    If the
whole community has the same view of things it's in danger of being
overtaken by unexpected change in the world around it.   If the
community has a rich variety of views, but they're not heard, it has the
same effect.   For the 'diversity of intelligences' principle to work,
the independent views people have need to be heard.   What's deadly
about that is that not hearing what someone else is saying is profoundly
silent.  

That's why I keep pointing to the principle that every point of view has
some valid basis.   That's an automatic 'wake-up call' saying that if
you heard some words and it didn't make sense, then you missed what it
had to say for you.   I think people very commonly don't give each other
that much credibility.    The fact that we consider what someone else
has to say as meaningless because we don't hear the meaning is a defect
in our upbringing in one way, that no one did for us the hard work of
erasing our 'naive reality' of assuming the world around us to be what
it appears to us to be.    What things appear to be is always
impoverished in comparison, and conveys a really false impression to us
if we accept appearances as what's there.

For example.  There's a huge opportunity to change the world for the
better by recognizing that economic growth is permanent positive
feedback system, and as such is destined to fail dramatically at the
peak of its success, like any natural or unnatural system limited by
nothing else but being overwhelmed by it's own feedbacks.     I've said
similar things 30 times here, without getting a single question about
it.   People obviously think that if they don't get it there's nothing
to get.  

I think what keeps a marketplace of ideas fluid and responsive, making
it open and exploratory, and gives a culture "adaptive management
strategies when faced with change or challenges" has to do with having
some way of telling when the silence we hear is of our own making.

 

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of PPARYSKI at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:32 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution



Historically it is ironic that the most democratic countries seem to be
the most homogenous and mono cultural, e.g. the Scandinavian countries.
Perhaps, as Jared Diamond concluded, the most important characteristic
of a successful society is its ability to choose, democratically or
otherwise, adaptive management strategies when faced with change or
challenges.
 
Paul Paryski

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061208/5407d782/attachment.html

[Marcus G. Daniels-3]

Phil Henshaw wrote:
>
> The fact that we consider what someone else has to say as meaningless
> because we don't hear the meaning is a defect in our upbringing in one
> way, that no one did for us the hard work of erasing our 'naive
> reality' of assuming the world around us to be what it appears to us
> to be.    What things appear to be is always impoverished in
> comparison, and conveys a really false impression to us if we accept
> appearances as what's there.
>
To be productive, it is necessary to invest only in those ideas where a
broadly-defined payoff can be estimated.   In situations where a
listener can't make this estimation, the failure may be from the speaker
or the listener, but this doesn't change the fact that infinite
resources are not available for reflection.   Even if it were, this
would create incentives to forever confused people who would inevitably
plead to others "Please give me more time because you don't understand
-- I have a valid point of view!"

>
> There's a huge opportunity to change the world for the better by
> recognizing that economic growth is permanent positive feedback
> system, and as such is destined to fail dramatically at the peak of
> its success, like any natural or unnatural system limited by nothing
> else but being overwhelmed by it's own feedbacks.     I've
> said similar things 30 times here, without getting a single question
> about it.   People obviously think that if they don't get it there's
> nothing to get.
>

What is one historical example of a dramatic failure lacking an
explanation that is as accurate or as parsimonious as your way of
thinking about positive feedback?