abefortas

I don't know if Despommier suggests this, but mightn't his idea make more sense if the towers were used for growing things like mushrooms?

I agree he's full of shit, but to be fair, that was one of Pinker's relatively few factual examples. I think it was good form on Gladwell's part to address only facts and not Pinker's thesis.

I feel bad when I get downvoted because I respect the opinions of other people on HN and they tend to use their downvotes pretty responsibly.

I don't think upvotes are quite as meaningful, though.

I suppose you're right. I shouldn't have said "anyone." But I don't think there's any example of a good monarchy.

I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to, but Medieval Iceland was a fine example of a funstioning anarchy: for longer than the United States has existed they had aterritorial, voluntary government by gothar (sort of kind of like chieftans, also sort of kind of like lawyers) who competed to provide people with governing services.

But Milton, you forgot Milton. I'm reading Paradise Lost. Maybe it is one of those things you're supposed to read, but it's genuinely really good. Like,

"to be weak is miserable doing or suffering: but of this be sure, to do aught good never will be our task, but ever to do ill our sole delight"

In my case it means the latter.

I don't understand. Have you actually read it? Where does he say anything about sticking it to the man, touching and feeling, or being special?

I assume you think progress is good and the world is right, but you haven't explained why.

You're being very dismissive.

I think his message was mostly about how he is more free to use his time as he chooses, which seems like a noble goal to me, although I have my doubts about how well "dropping out" as he has done accomplishes this.

Also, calling the statement "property is theft" a meme does not make it untrue.

Wouldn't it make more sense to downvote either to eliminate spam/noise or to signal disagreement? I'm all for stoning spammers, but I think it's more constructive to write a response if you disagree with someone.

The teams thing might be an interesting idea.

But doesn't "structure with incentives, accountability, clear lines of authority, and very tangible goals" pretty much describe a typical classroom, and doesn't a typical classroom suck?

I agree. I get rid of that stuff, but only to conserve screen real estate.

You're right. That's what I meant by evolutionary suicide, and my argument (well, it's not really mine) relies on all six assumptions, more or less.

Although:

Colonizing space and colonizing space to the point where you don't need to worry about earth's carrying capacity are two quite different things. Energy and minerals might be obtainable from space somewhat soon. But we can't eat rocks or sunlight.

I don't claim population growth will be sustained into the indefinite future. I claim that it will be sustained until it stops, and that how it will stop is a question of serious concern.

As I see it there are several possibilities: 1.Population growth continues apace and, due to reproductive time lag, there are suddenly far too many people on the earth. This has a quite catastrophic domino effect and an appalling number of people, maybe 100%, die. 2.Population slows and then stops, but people's lifestyles get more and more decadent and far too many resources are transformed into far too much waste. Something, or many things, run out and disaster ensues. 3.Both population growth and resource consumption naturally find some sustainable level. Maybe that would be somewhere below where it is now. Maybe someone would invent something fabulous, say a glass elevator like in Charlie and the Great Glass elevator, and there is room for lots more consumption and lots more people.

Obviously, I prefer the third option. Maybe it will be that. I'm just sufficiently unsure to be worried about it.

It's a good example if it's right.

I would have responded earlier if I had noticed this.

You're right that it's not quite a necessity. It's concievable that population growth could continue, albeit at a very slow rate, until people are ready to colonize space. I don't doubt that humans will figure out how to do that-- if they survive long enough.

But it seems likely to me, maybe even obvious, that at the current rate of growth people are going to commit evolutionary suicide long before that becomes possible. This because the earth is very limited and recently economic growth has been really fast. In addition to the Club of Rome stuff recommended above, check out: Capitalism Nature Socialism, a pretty good journal which often discusses these issues, and Beyond Growth by Herman Daly.

Edit: note that it was I who upvoted your comment.

If it was per capita it would also be total.

Fine, but obviously the population is going to stop growing.

Some people are against having a growing economy. Obviously the economy cannot grow indefinitely.

It's not a perfect comparison, but it's very true that civil rights protesters were lucky not to face some of the "less lethal" weapons available now.

Why do you think the "worst eventualities" are so catastrophic, if not because of such planning?

Either birds are dinosaurs, or they aren't. My brother says there ain't no two ways about it-- as you say, they are dinosaurs the same way I'm a primate. Obviously they aren't Composognathus* the way I'm not a lemur, but that's not what I was wondering.

*a small theropod, most probably an ancestor of birds

But "lemur" is rather more specific than "dinosaur." Dinosaur is just a broad category defined by scientists. If they want "Dinosaur" to include modern animals, that's up to them.

From the tone of your answer, you sound pretty confident that chickens are not dinosaurs-- perhaps you have some authoritative information on this? If so, can you direct me to it? My google-fu deserts me.

This is interesting, and would be epsecially so if he could actually get to a making a dinosaur stage.

Larsson says chickens are direct descendents of dinosaurs. He is a paleontologist. My brother says they are dinosaurs. He is merely an aspiring paleontologist. Perhaps both are the case? Can anyone clear this up?

No. There are other kinds of value besides monetary value.

An artwork is not a porsche. Even if I had anywhere near enough money to buy a Kiefer, there would be no room for it in my house, and it would not belong there anyway. I think it is valuable simply that Kiefer's paintings exist, and would be even if museum's weren't willing to pay for them.

Depending on the meaning of value. I value lots of works of art very highly, but I've hardly ever considered buying art.

I think art can have value without being particularly saleable. And with certain kinds of art, the fact that it's popular and lucrative may even be a sign that it's crass and inauthentic. Think Damien Hirst and Andy Warhol.

Maybe he was arguing against democracy, not government?

His point-- and it's one I think I agree with-- is that majority decision making really only differs from tyranny only numerically.

The alternative, I suppose, would be voluntary governments, and decion making by consensus.

I don't think I have any ethical responsibility to help make sites I go to profitable. I also don't like looking at ads.

In the case of Gmail, Google can easily absorb the cost of my not seeing ads. If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't provide free webmail.

I'm not sure if there's any important distinction to be made between spying and "round the clock supervision." Either way, it's overbearing and paternalistic.

We don't need to stretch the definition of hacking to be interested in something.

GEB is much better. I didn't get very far in "I am a Strange Loop," but GEB is easily one of my favorite books.