From: Randy Smith (randysmith101@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 06:25:48 MDT
>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: Fear of Letting People Get Things They Want
>Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 03:17:36 -0700
>
>Randy Smith wrote:
> >
> > >"A random person in the world will be chosen, and you get this choice:
> > >a) Let them have $X more worth of real resources (such as by telling
>them
> > >where
> > >to find an oil reserve that would otherwise remain unfound.)
> > >b) Nothing happens.
> > >Which do you choose?
> > >
> > I would choose not to give it to him. I do so because I know that if
>this
> > person (person Y) is wealthier, then that means that whatever wealth I
>have,
> > is lessened. If Joe X wants to sell some property and I want to buy it,
>then
> > have if I let this person Y have the oil wealth which would otherwise
>remain
> > unfound, then there is more competition for the property I bidding for,
>and
> > the price goes up.
> >
>
>That does not follow unless you believe wealth is static.
Hmm. Jargon? Dogma?
>There is more
>competition if the person wants the same limited resource as you.
Yes?
>There
>is also one more person with more resources, which, if used wisely will
>produce more wealth for you and everyone else.
There was a tribe of protohumans in the valley. Protohuman Mac finds a nice
chunk of chert (flint), hard to find in the valley. Previously, protohuman
Joe had the only chunk of chert in the valley and he was going to trade it
for the semi-rancid gazelle carcass that some other protohuman had found,
and with that, he was going to lure that comely female protohuman Velma into
the bushes, and thereby pass on his genes. But now, with his bigger chunk of
chert, Mac gets to pass on his genes.
Do you think Joe, if he were not able to get the chert himself, would have
told Mac where it was? Velma womb is the limited resources here, ultimately.
>I would take the chance
>on the competition.
Bid adieu to the gene pool, then.
> > Wealth is relative, in many respects (and this does not pertain to
> > heightened standards of living caused by the accumulation of the
>benefits of
> > technology & engineering, etc).
> > So why do people choose not to let this person Y have the wealth, and
>why do
> > we not know why they make this decision?
> > Because people make these types of decisions without thinking. They
>don't
> > have to think about it. There is a survival advantage to thinking this
>way;
> > it's bred into us over eons.
>
>There is a survival advantage only in a world of scarcity where even
>mere surival actually is pretty problematic.
THat's how it was and is. Even now, we often enforce artificial scarcity for
the most valuable resources in our society (medical care, real estate, etc).
Even now, wealth is relative.
>The trouble is we haven't
>thought past genetic conditioning that is largely outmoded.
Can you support that statement with examples?
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:08 MST