At 14:33 01/16/99 , Forrest Bishop wrote:
>You can also argue reducio ad absurdum - lowering the limit
I think people would tell you that they "have to drive" to "survive".
I have offered some reductio ad absurdum suggestions before that are
clear of this "have to" issue, for example:
>'save' all the lives. I have never seen anyone do an analysis of this
>phenomenon like the one above; why do you suppose that is? Might it
>conflict with the kindergarten culture belief sysem?
(of course, one can prohibit everything that is not absolutely necessary,
such as driving to movies or sports games, or any fun activities. But then,
people may find that the life itself is no longer really "important")
The apparent truth here is that people want not to optimize
Now, why there is so little publicity for these suggestions,
The issue I think is that the distribution of ideas is propelled by power
interests more than by their truth value; this problem is apparently worst
with the centralized power, though a mechanism for distribution of critical
evaluations of non-coercive projects is also quite needed.
So they offer lop-sided arguments that sound convincing enough
Who would pay millions of dollars for the study showing what kinds of risks
people are willing to bear in their pursuit of quality of life, freedom, and
happiness? Not the State, I think.
I would expect that some visionary journalistic efforts aimed
An article on Concrete Umbrellas, anyone?
I actually strongly doubt that a well-chosen phrase can generally
Alexander Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
<sasha1@netcom.com> <sasha@media.mit.edu>