Cheating Favors Extinction
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2013, 07:26 PM
Cheating Favors Extinction
Fascinating study showing survival rate of microbial societies with "cheaters"

"The researchers found that while a cooperative yeast colony that survives by breaking down sucrose into a communal supply of simple sugars can support a surprisingly high ratio of freeloaders—upwards of 90 per cent—a sudden shock to its environment is highly likely to result in catastrophe.

Short article: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-favors-extinction.html#jCp

The implication that come to mind is politcal within our own society. The survival ratio of fully co-operational colonies was 6/6, while those colonies that were not their survival rate was 1/6. Small sample, yes, but intriguing nontheless.

1) I wonder what the ratio of co-operators to cheaters reside in our respective countries and the world as a whole.
What constitutes a "cheater" in human society?
Perhaps mechanic vs hedge fund manager? Doctor vs scam artist?
Small business owner vs welfare recipient?
2) What kind of shock would tip the balance from survival to extinction?
a) global warming (less food production)
b) overpopulation

Is this even a rational comaprison? Any thoughts?

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 09:25 PM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey, Full.

Check out the Tit for Tat strategy and the gene-centred view of altruism.

1 - I don't know what the ratio is and I can't say much about your examples. But a cheater would be someone who acted selfishly versus cooperatively. The tit for tat strategy employs equivalent retaliation. I begin with the assumption that you will be cooperative and match your last move. As long as you remain cooperative, I remain cooperative. But when you throw me under the bus, I respond in kind.

I think what the article was saying is that a given society can support a given number of cheaters, so long as they began with enough cooperators. If they didn't, then there is never a time where enough food is made.

I think the slight variation for us is that most of the producers in Our culture aren't cooperators. They're impelled to produce by coercive threat.

2 - I'm gonna go with the 2008 financial meltdown.

2A and B - I'm tired, so I don't think that I'm picking up what you're putting down.

I fall down go boom sleepy time.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
01-05-2013, 07:10 AM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
(30-04-2013 09:25 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Full.

Check out the Tit for Tat strategy and the gene-centred view of altruism.

1 - I don't know what the ratio is and I can't say much about your examples. But a cheater would be someone who acted selfishly versus cooperatively. The tit for tat strategy employs equivalent retaliation. I begin with the assumption that you will be cooperative and match your last move. As long as you remain cooperative, I remain cooperative. But when you throw me under the bus, I respond in kind.

I think what the article was saying is that a given society can support a given number of cheaters, so long as they began with enough cooperators. If they didn't, then there is never a time where enough food is made.

I think the slight variation for us is that most of the producers in Our culture aren't cooperators. They're impelled to produce by coercive threat.

2 - I'm gonna go with the 2008 financial meltdown.

2A and B - I'm tired, so I don't think that I'm picking up what you're putting down.

I fall down go boom sleepy time.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

2a and b are my examples of what a shock to the human race might be caused by.

The financial meltdown immediately came to mind as well.

Is the tit for tat similar to the prisoner's dilemma? Cooperation guarantees survival and non-cooperation spells disaster for both?

For more than 25 years, and specifically the last 15, I've managed our own investments. Even though I spend a great deal of time and effort in this endeavor I sometimes feel it produces nothing for the society I live in (though it does "produce" money for me that I put into circulation).

I used to be a builder, gave me great satisfaction seeing something tangible for my efforts. Back then I would have considered myself a cooperator in this scenario but now a cheater in the role as an investor/trader. I'm just throwing this out there for comments, the idea is not fully formed in my head yet.

This video is from a UK game show called Golden Balls (I know, I know). This 6 minute clip is self explanatory and has to do with cooperation and Game Theory, I found it fascinating.




"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey, Full.

Awesome video. Truly. That's a perfect example of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

What game theorists realised is that the dilemma made altruism almost impossible. It made no sense. But then they realised that people were prone to defect ONLY if it was run once. If you run it through multiple iterations (which we do in life) then Tit for Tat becomes the strategy of choice. So yes, tit for tat has to do with the ITERATED Prisoner's Dilemma in that it is the strategy of choice and is part of the explanation for altruism.

Adam Smith said this. "Where production reigns. Prosperity. Where revenue. Idleness."

I remember last decade, people were shitting on Bill Gates left right and centre and someone quipped, "As shitty as Microsoft is, it's one of the only companies in the world that's actually producing something!"

There's no need to get into an argument about the control of the means of production, the idle rich and the proletariat. I think primarily because exploitation and altruism are anathema.

I think that you're gaming the system, but that's different than defecting. Defecting is more like a betrayal. Like if we're sharing something and then you just fuck off with all of it.

I gotta say, I like this conversation and this subject and it's always a pleasure speaking with you; however, I don't think I've figured out where you're going with this or what you're looking for. Care to elaborate on that?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 09:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 11:04 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey Matt,

Like I said I don't have a fully formed idea of where I'm headed with this. I kinda like what's happening with the conversation anyway.

I think that your observation of having to "play" the game repeatedly changes the way human interactions evolve.

I used to live in a small town where flipping off the guy who just cut you off could turn out to have bad consequences because it might be my neighbor, co-worker or barber. Whereas when I go into Miami nowdays the chances of having this type of interchange with someone I know is miniscule, thus I'm more prone to do it. (Actually, in Miami I try to keep my head down and not piss off anyone, they're probably packing heat).

Anonymity and single interaction events are conducive to one kind of behavior, defection as you put it, and is in stark contrast to a very different type of behavior where I might need your cooperation in the future; here the tit-for-tat choice is preferred. I believe this is your point?

So bringing the conversation back to "colonies/communities with cheaters favor extinction". Since most of us on the planet live in communities far larger than Dunbar's Number (150 or so) and anonymity is easily maintained, I wonder what holds us together? Why aren't more of us gaming the system, or better yet defecting as you say? Or could it be, like the bacteria colonies in the study, many of us are already gaming it and we are teeter totering on the brink of extinction and don't even know it?

Is it altruism? Do we inherently know that we need each other for survival? Is it peer pressure? Fear of retribution or punishment (and I don't mean the celestial kind)? Maybe we're just hard-wired by evolution to prefer cooperation.

Sorry for my ramblings and lack of a specific direction. It's just that sometimes I wonder how it is that we humans get along at all.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 04:57 AM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey, Full.

Yeah. If people are in a long-term relationship, tit for tat is preferred.

Yeah. I don't think I'll ever go to Miami. Florida has the single most insane murder laws outside of just not having any. It's pretty fucking ridiculous. Lots of Yanks pack heat. Floridians can use it on me and not even be investigated. That's messed.

I think that at one point I had a fully-formed argument about tit for tat vs exploitation, but I don't remember what it was. So I'll offer this.

I think that the hierarchical class-based system of civilisaition uses our predisposition for altruism against us. We are, first and foremost, in this system anyway, producers. We produce a surplus and those that control the means of production exploit our efforts. But we don't do this or let this happen because of altruism. The yeast does, because there's no grand poobah. But for us, the deal is simple. Work, or else. That "or else", at it's simplest is, "or else you won't eat." Food, in Our culture, is a commodity that's owned. If you don't work, you don't get any. It can also mean, "or you get whipped, slave." Or, "The lord will behead you, serf."

At any rate, I think the exploitation system is different because there is never a real cooperation in place for the ownership class to defect from.

That being said, it's still in force in the microcosm. In your family, amongst your friends. Just not on the level of our large scale organisation.

So, as for gaming the system, I think people will use the laws to their advantage and that some, as the late great Ray Anderson once said, will act as bad as the law allows.

... It just struck me that one of the points raised in yeast cheating is basically that a few can cheat, but if too many do, then they system collapses under its own weight. With the yeast, it's about sharing the food. I guess it could be said that the rich don't produce, they just eat, meaning they could be considered cheaters. We can have some, but if everyone is doing it, the system will crap out on us.

Lastly, our species IS on the brink of extinction and most people have no idea.

As for being hard-wired, according to the gene-centred view, we are. Altruism is about genes, not organisms. Organisms are just survival machines for genes. As long as we get them to reproduction, we've served our purpose. Altruism creates an environment that is most conducive to achieving reproduction. That's why the genes do it. Altruism is "selfish". Hence, The Selfish Gene.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013 10:12 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey Matt,

I have to think if exploitation is the right term for this. While I agree that there exists exploitation I would say the vast majority of workers (assume I am talking about the U.S.) work for themselves, they are not serfs, indentured servants or the like. A corporation still has to pay competitive wages if they wish to attract and keep talent. Would you explain this next comment a bit further? I'm not sure how to interpret.

"I think the exploitation system is different because there is never a real cooperation in place for the ownership class to defect from."

According to the article too many cheaters weaken the system, and I can with some confidence, extrapolate this to our own human condition. There is always a lot of finger pointing as to who these cheaters are. The 99% point at the 1% and vice versa. In my opinion I think it's both camps. The middle class, or what's left of it, is the backbone of the cooperative if you will. The 1%, in my mind its really the 0.1%, while very small is very powerful. They pull the political strings to benefit themselves first, if it happens to benefit others then I would see this as a by-product.

The 99%, in my view its really the bottom quintile and even part of the 4th quintile, do not produce enough to carry their own weight (there are many reasons for this, I'm not assigning blame or passing judgement here). This means that the rest of the societal members do all the heavy lifting. The people with whom without the society would collapse. Conservatively speaking I would venture to guess, this is a guess mind you, that 60-70% of Americans produce all the services and products consumed by the whole population.

I am in full agreement with your observations of altruism being in effect in a microcosm of family and friends and "Altruism creates an environment that is most conducive to achieving reproduction".

Looking forward to your thoughts.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey, Full.

Quote:I have to think if exploitation is the right term for this. While I agree that there exists exploitation I would say the vast majority of workers (assume I am talking about the U.S.) work for themselves, they are not serfs, indentured servants or the like.

Workers, by definition, work for a wage. They are employees. Slaves, serfs, the proletariat... all the same thing.

The dynamic is that there is a minority that owns the means of production: the land, the factories, the tools, the everything, and a majority that does not own the means of production and must sell their labour in order to make a living. The difference between a slave, a serf and an employee of Google is simply a matter of degrees of freedom, labour rights and salary. Otherwise, they're identical.

The vast majority of workers do not work for themselves. They work for a company or a corporation or the state.

The way the law works is that those who own the means of production legally own 100% of everything produced using those means of production. That's true if you're a king, a plantation owner, a factory owner, a member of the central committee, or the CEO of Goodyear. The workers they use own 0% of it. In return for doing all of that work, they give them some form of income. Invariably, that income is worth a fraction of the value of the products they have made. If workers got the full value, they wouldn't have to work very hard. They'd make enough to survive on, maybe a little extra for luxury's sake, and then be done with it. Some people could make enough for the week in hours, if not minutes. But because they only receive a fraction of the value of their labour, they have to produce well in excess of what they themselves need to survive. More importantly, they are impelled to do so, because if they do not, then they don't eat. This is why our system can create a surplus ALL THE TIME. That's remarkable. No other species, no other culture does that. So by retaining all of the products and enjoying the value of them while paying the workers a pittance, the owners of the means of production are exploiting the workers.

So without a doubt in my mind, exploitation is the correct term.

The difference with the yeast is that their society is egalitarian. There are no yeasts (or whatever you call one of them) that can tell the others to produce more than they need so that the big boss can go to Barbados for the weekend. As in all egalitarian societies, the labour burden is spread evenly across the population. It is a completely different system to ours.

In terms of symbiosis relationship, the yeast engage in cooperation: intra species symbiosis (different from mutualism: inter species symbiosis). Our system is really a form of parasitism.

Our system fails for different reasons. Our system demands growth. A recession or a depression are neither negative growth nor the cessation of growth. They are merely the SLOWING of growth. That's how dependent on growth our system is. So in our system, when people aren't producing enough, there are laws in place to remedy the situation. This is very different than the yeast situation in which there are zero mechanisms to impel any organism to produce more.

Quote:According to the article too many cheaters weaken the system, and I can with some confidence, extrapolate this to our own human condition.

I agree that too many cheaters weaken the system, but the fundamental economics of an egalitarian system (the yeast) and an exploitative one (Our culture) are different. There are; however, egalitarian human societies. For them, the yeast situation applies 100%.

Quote:There is always a lot of finger pointing as to who these cheaters are. The 99% point at the 1% and vice versa. In my opinion I think it's both camps.

I'm not 100% certain what you mean by this, but my gut says, "Maaaaan, bitch, you be trippin!" Cool





Quote:The middle class, or what's left of it, is the backbone of the cooperative if you will.

I won't Cool

The middle class is basically split into two sections:
1 - Small business owners
2 - Professionals

Some middle class own small businesses like restaurants or garages or clothing stores or whathaveyou. They own the means of production and pay a small cadre of workers a minimal fee.





But these middle class do not control the towering heights of the economy. So their power is limited.

The professionals (doctors, lawyers, MBAs, MMA fighters) don't actually own the means of production, they work for someone else (with the exceptions of professionals that run their own business). Like all workers, the only means they have of making an income is to sell their labour. The difference is that professionals are in limited supply and can therefore demand more money than Johnny Flippinburgers.

In essence, the middle class are just rich poor people... but they ain't wealthy.





Quote:The 1%, in my mind its really the 0.1%, while very small is very powerful. They pull the political strings to benefit themselves first, if it happens to benefit others then I would see this as a by-product.

You'd also be Ayn Rand <vomits>

Enlightened self-interest is such a bad joke.

Quote:The 99%, in my view its really the bottom quintile and even part of the 4th quintile, do not produce enough to carry their own weight (there are many reasons for this, I'm not assigning blame or passing judgement here). This means that the rest of the societal members do all the heavy lifting. The people with whom without the society would collapse. Conservatively speaking I would venture to guess, this is a guess mind you, that 60-70% of Americans produce all the services and products consumed by the whole population.

I found this confusing.

My first reaction is that the 99% produce EVERYTHING. They just get paid fuckall.

I don't know who yo mean by "the rest of the societal members". Certainly you don't mean the 1%, do you?

Quote:I am in full agreement with your observations of altruism being in effect in a microcosm of family and friends and "Altruism creates an environment that is most conducive to achieving reproduction".

Cheers.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey Matt,

We may differ on some of these points.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Workers, by definition, work for a wage. They are employees. Slaves, serfs, the proletariat... all the same thing.

The dynamic is that there is a minority that owns the means of production: the land, the factories, the tools, the everything, and a majority that does not own the means of production and must sell their labour in order to make a living. The difference between a slave, a serf and an employee of Google is simply a matter of degrees of freedom, labour rights and salary. Otherwise, they're identical.

I don't see it that way. There is no comparison in my view. Freedom to make a living as one can does not equate to slave or serf. You can argue that they are being exploited to some degree but that's not the same thing.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The vast majority of workers do not work for themselves. They work for a company or a corporation or the state.

True

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  But because they only receive a fraction of the value of their labour, they have to produce well in excess of what they themselves need to survive. More importantly, they are impelled to do so, because if they do not, then they don't eat. This is why our system can create a surplus ALL THE TIME. That's remarkable. No other species, no other culture does that. So by retaining all of the products and enjoying the value of them while paying the workers a pittance, the owners of the means of production are exploiting the workers.

So without a doubt in my mind, exploitation is the correct term.

A poorly paid worker is being exploited, I agree.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  In terms of symbiosis relationship, the yeast engage in cooperation: intra species symbiosis (different from mutualism: inter species symbiosis). Our system is really a form of parasitism.

I would say it is a skewed Trophic mutualism. Both sides receive benefits but not equally.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I agree that too many cheaters weaken the system, but the fundamental economics of an egalitarian system (the yeast) and an exploitative one (Our culture) are different. There are; however, egalitarian human societies. For them, the yeast situation applies 100%.

I'd say they are few and far in between and very small in population.

Quote:There is always a lot of finger pointing as to who these cheaters are. The 99% point at the 1% and vice versa. In my opinion I think it's both camps.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm not 100% certain what you mean by this, but my gut says, "Maaaaan, bitch, you be trippin!" Cool


There will be those that exploit the welfare system and there are those that exploit the workers.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The middle class is basically split into two sections:
1 - Small business owners
2 - Professionals

That's what I said, or so I thought.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  But these middle class do not control the towering heights of the economy. So their power is limited.

In essence, the middle class are just rich poor people... but they ain't wealthy.

This is what I said below ↓ , I also equate wealthy to powerful. For instance the doctors and lawyers and small business owners may be wealthy as compared to the 99%, but these folks who make up the top 99.0 to 99.9 don't wield the power that the last 0.1% do.

Quote:The 1%, in my mind its really the 0.1%, while very small is very powerful. They pull the political strings to benefit themselves first, if it happens to benefit others then I would see this as a by-product.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  You'd also be Ayn Rand <vomits>

Would you like some Pepto? I don't follow you here.

Quote:The 99%, in my view its really the bottom quintile and even part of the 4th quintile, do not produce enough to carry their own weight (there are many reasons for this, I'm not assigning blame or passing judgement here). This means that the rest of the societal members do all the heavy lifting. The people with whom without the society would collapse. Conservatively speaking I would venture to guess, this is a guess mind you, that 60-70% of Americans produce all the services and products consumed by the whole population.

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I found this confusing.

Take a look at the results of these findings to see where I'm coming from-

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/pow...nager.html

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  My first reaction is that the 99% produce EVERYTHING. They just get paid fuckall.

Some fuckall is much more than other fuckall Big Grin

(02-05-2013 12:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I don't know who yo mean by "the rest of the societal members". Certainly you don't mean the 1%, do you?


Not exactly, again you can leave off the 0.1%. BTW all this data has been broken down in the above links.

If I understand your points, you say that we as a society, have 99% producing and 1% exploiting or "cheating"? In view of the study then this would seem to be a healthy society. I maintain that we are nowhere near to 99% producers.

For us to be more egalitarian we need as a society to concentrate our resources on the education of the masses. As for the powers that be, whether it is the 1% or the 0.1% they need to realize that they cannot flourish without a functioning society, at least not for long.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 04:33 PM
RE: Cheating Favors Extinction
Hey, Full.

Quote: We may differ on some of these points.

Indeed Cool

But that's cool, daddy-o Smile

Quote:I don't see it that way. There is no comparison in my view. Freedom to make a living as one can does not equate to slave or serf. You can argue that they are being exploited to some degree but that's not the same thing.

Your distinction seems arbitrary and emotional. It's like saying we couldn't possibly compare cats and blue whales. We absolutely can. There are very much fundamental similarities. They are of the same ilk. If I say they are the same because they're both dozens of metres long, you have reasonable grounds to object; however, if I say they are the same because they're both mammals, then you do not. Anyone who sells their labour to the owners of the means of production is of the same breed; the exploited.





What they earn as income and what their rights are differentiate them like huge size and landing on your feet differentiate blue whales from cats, but the dynamic of the production class to the rulership class is the same whether you're a slave, a serf, a proletariat, a worker or an employee.

Quote: A poorly paid worker is being exploited, I agree.

An any paid worker is exploited.

If I have $10 and you take $5, you've taken half my money. Same thing if I have $1 000 000 and you take $500 000.

No matter how much money a worker (we seem to be using worker as a functional shorthand term) generates in income in return for their labour, it will ALWAYS be a fraction of the value that the products they produced are worth. The exploitation relationship only makes sense if that is the case.

If a doctor is paid 100k and a box stacker is paid 15k, if they generate 1 million and 150k of value with their labour, they're both being exploited. Even if the doctor earns half of what he generates, she's still being exploited.

Exploitation has nothing to do with the nature of the work or the dollar values involved. It has simply to do with the appropriation of the output of someone's labour by the owners of the means of production.

Quote: I would say it is a skewed Trophic mutualism. Both sides receive benefits but not equally.

My issue with this is that mutualism has to do with the relationship of two different species. Like water buffalo and oxpecker birds have a mutualist symbiotic relationship.

Strictly speaking, parasitism occurs between two different species as well, but parasitism is about one taking from the other, or benefiting at the expense of the other. That's exactly what happens with exploitation. Exploitation is a form of institutionalised theft.

Quote: Would you like some Pepto? I don't follow you here.

Ayn Rand, batshit crazy psycho hose beast extraordinaire, proposed the notion of enlightened self-interest. It's the idea that the rich do, and should, take care of themselves first and that as a result of that self-interest, the poor benefit. It's the mother of trickle down economics and it's just utterly insane and a little on the vom inducing side Cool





Quote: Take a look at the results of these findings to see where I'm coming from-

I checked it out, but I'm still confused by what you mean about "carry their own weight". I don't get it?

Quote: Some fuckall is much more than other fuckall Big Grin

I suppose being sodomised by a broom handle three times a month is better than getting sodomised by a broom handle thirty times a month, but I'd still consider broom handle sodomy a problem regardless of how many times a month I took one in the poop chute.

The issue isn't how well or how poorly someone fares in the system, the problem is how the system functions.

Quote:Not exactly, again you can leave off the 0.1%.

I realise that I don't think I know who you're talking about when you say the 0.1%.

Quote:If I understand your points, you say that we as a society, have 99% producing and 1% exploiting or "cheating"? In view of the study then this would seem to be a healthy society. I maintain that we are nowhere near to 99% producers.

Well, no, I wouldn't put a precise figure on it. But I would say with confidence that the number of people that own and control the means of production is miniscule in comparison with those that sell their labour.

For example there are 1 426 billionaires in the entire world.

Shockingly, and this dovetails with the findings that you posted and highlights the growing disparity between the rich and poor and the decline of the middle class, that figure is up from 2000 when there were just 470 billionaires.

More importantly, I'm not calling exploitation cheating. I think that cheating can only happen when there is otherwise cooperation. Cheating involves defecting, or betraying those you cooperate with. In our system, people are just exploited. End of story. No cooperation. Nothing to see here. Move along.





Quote:For us to be more egalitarian we need as a society to concentrate our resources on the education of the masses.

Educated or non-educated, all people living in a blender have to deal with the blades. Our problem isn't education or a lack thereof, it's the fact that our system is structured a certain way.

Egalitarianism has very specific requirements, none of which are, or can, be met by Our society.

Quote: As for the powers that be, whether it is the 1% or the 0.1% they need to realize that they cannot flourish without a functioning society, at least not for long.

In the second Matrix movie, the Architect said something very profound (well, every word he uttered was profound, but I'm talking about one thing). "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

I'll leave that at that, otherwise I'll be launching into ideological control and the ISA and the RSA and blah blah blah. Point is, the owners of the means of production are like mice. They can shed their tail rather than get eaten. Unfortunately for the poor, in times of crisis, they're the tail.

Just to bring this all back to the OP now that it's percolated some, I think that the yeast study and it's findings make sense. I just think that there is a translation error when it comes to applying it to a full-blown hierarchical civilisation because there is no cooperation to begin with, only exploitation.





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: