I'm far from saying don't get involved; only that appealing to government through existing democratic channels is not going to change much. "Please change your ways, pretty please" isn't going to cut it any more.

This isn't a war between the rich and the poor; it's a war between man and the virtual machine we insist on running. It isn't a conspiracy controlled by the few, it's en emergent behaviour perpetuated by the many.

There are those who are more guilty than the rest - where most of us are pedalling the wheels, they are actively strapping on rocket engines for their own gain; but targeting the rich will only get us so far.

If you look at different subjects - genetics, game theory and economics you can see from all of them that a population or economy will always carry the selfish. No more than the population will tolerate, and no less than they will suffer.

I believe we should accept that, and not focus on futile attempts at eliminating the selfish, but at the more realistic task of reducing the opportunity for corruption by them.

We are all responsible.

Each and every one of us that works for, or works with a corporation is contributing to the problem. It's a nonsensical system and it's ripe for corruption, yet we do it to ourselves.

Imagine a mechanical godzilla tearing through a city, causing death and mayhem; crushing schools, burning homes and squashing people in it's path; the city dwellers fleeing and screaming in terror. Imagine that monster of destruction suddenly grinding to a halt; foot steps are heard, a door cranks open.

Who steps out? Is it Mitt Romney? No it's your neighbour Larry; he's clocking off and now it's your shift.>> ^packo:

if you stand back and say "I don't get involved, politics are too dirty"... you are failing yourself, your future, your children, your children's future, your country, and your country's future... you are the OPPOSITE of patriotic, and can only consider yourself a citizen in the form of the burden you place upon others

@KnivesOut

A very few of these folks are high-functioning, which leaves them after much assistance just barely able to support themselves doing worthless keep-the-meat-breathing jobs in a society where 'productivity' typically implies stealing prosperity from the future. Even rare high-functioning downs are subhuman.

We all know very well that to "simply rely on the extra chromosome to decide which ones to abort" is unambiguously successful at improving the genetic and intellectual stock of our species. Even basic interventions like these are completely effective, perfect goods for the world. To kill a downs baby is a mitzvah.

When we can agree on that, everything else is logistics.

@gwiz665

It's easy to confuse mental retardation with disability, but the two are utterly distinct. Human beings in disadvantaged circumstances like the "sick, disabled, ... jobless, poor etc" require assistance not as a matter of 'common decency' but simply the rational understanding that where we could all find ourselves in need, it's necessary to provide a safety net; game theory rather than compassion provides the answer to that question. Retards on the other hand are literally and must be treated as any other wounded animal - either ignored or put out of its misery.

Won't work if both people follow your logic.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

I don't think I would go as far as saying to steal is morally the best choice, but rationally the stronger choice. If 2 gods incapable of lying were on staged, and promised to share, that is the most moral position. Well actually, IMO, 2 people that CAN choose to lie deciding not to is more morally pretty, so 2 humans choosing share because they want to do the right thing is the best moral outcome, and also the hardest to achieve. And to that end, your suggesting that stealing becomes more moral starts to gain a little traction in real world human transactions, but it only works if you can get people to act in a certain way...so it is morally dependent on the actions of other people, which is not a good place for your morality. All it takes is a type person Rorschach, a moral high grounder whom wants to punish injustice to ruin the plan, as in the movie version of watchmen. The conflict of justice with fairness makes a TRUE solution imposible to have. This is one of the moral problems that lead me away from my faith, Justice and Goodness being incompatible in the way they cary themselves out. For instace, a person whom wants to not do the "right" thing (share) but make sure a person that does the wrong thing get screwed (push for stealing by stealing ensuring that both get nothing) is incompatible with the Goodness version where share is the only option. The conflict between "Love" and "Justice" meant, to me, that there is no way to be loyal to both at the same time, and anyone who says they are is a lier. Anyway, didn't want to drag the conversation here per say, but this was a key kind of conversation I had with myself in a very similar chain of events as to this gameshow...a showdown of ideas, ideals, and morals.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.

>> ^RedSky:

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.



>> ^RedSky:

@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

That was absolutely great! He just turned equilibrium in on itself, to be what he thought was fair I am sure! I am sure most people got what he was doing, but it is such a great tactic, it is worth explaining in long form.

So this game theory is based on 2 things:

If you choose steal you can either get everything, or nothing
If you choose split you can either get half , or nothing

In this, it is always the better proposition to steal, the risk is the same with a better pay off. It is of course, the more morally dubious because you (until this guy) need to lie in a believable fashion that you will choose split even though you plan to steal. This is the basis for may different game theory zero sum systems. The genius here is the double tactic. He is actually taking ALL of the risk (afforded him, as he is going to choose split) and only risking half of the reward, but on the reverse notion that he is going to steal when he is actually going to split. He is trying to get the fair outcome by convincing the other person the only fair outcome that could possibly happen is for him to act in the fair way ( split ), because he is planning on scorching the earth. This tactic is much like King Solomon's baby tactic, only the man who really wants the prize money will choose to go along with this plan. The person whom is here for spite will cause them to loose it all, so he placed all his chips that he was a good man, and since he was, the baby, in this case 6 large ones was his. This is an absolutely brilliant way to solve a zero sum gain where you take all the risk of the liars position with only half the reward. Thanks for the share, and sorry for the over share, this was just really exciting to the logic side of maaa brain!

Pascal's wager assumes there is (or is not) only a single god. It doesn't factor in that if you happen to believe in the wrong god, then you are damned for eternity. So it's not just a yes /no question.

Global warming isn't so straight forward either. One thing is to figure out whether or not it is happening and what causes it, another is what to do in response. It seems the scientific community has all but reach a consensus about it, but what we do in response is really the important thing. Again, the response is not "nothing or everything", it's "how much do we need to do".
>> ^vaire2ube:

Holy shit (no pun) but isnt this Pascal's Wager turned around on the religious?
Game Theory ... the Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God if there was no God ? Doesn't matter... no God. Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God and there is a god? Infinite.
Therefore, the smart money is to behave as though God exists.
so
Should we behave as good stewards and attempt to minimize our impact, betting on the outcome that it matters?
Or should we bet that it doesn't matter, and have it matter, which is a position that is unwise according to the payout.... given of course we all have the same opinion of the value of the payout which i guess we dont but perhaps could quantify in terms of energy consumption/production..

Holy shit (no pun) but isnt this Pascal's Wager turned around on the religious?

Game Theory ... the Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God if there was no God ? Doesn't matter... no God. Payoff for believing in (being a disciple of) God and there is a god? Infinite.

Therefore, the smart money is to behave as though God exists.

so

Should we behave as good stewards and attempt to minimize our impact, betting on the outcome that it matters?

Or should we bet that it doesn't matter, and have it matter, which is a position that is unwise according to the payout.... given of course we all have the same opinion of the value of the payout which i guess we dont but perhaps could quantify in terms of energy consumption/production..

@bcglorf I think you're still not responding to the basic point I'm making. It's not really even about science or climate change, but about game theory, and how to make decisions in the absence of certainty.

I've never ingested cyanide, but every scientist, herbalist, toxicologist, and work of fiction has told me it's lethal. For me, that's good enough. I'm not going to eat it, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the government restricting companies from putting it in my food, my water, or the air.

For you, I'm guessing that instead you'd want to dig into the scientific studies on cyanide's toxicity first. Yes, the scientists themselves say the evidence is overwhelming, but you have doubts. You think they're missing something. After all, every time you go looking for problems, you're able to find some detail that sounds fishy to you.

They could just be overlooking some other potential cause of death that just seemed to be cyanide, because obviously cyanide isn't the only thing that can kill people. Maybe the natural mortality rate back then was that high. Who knows? I mean, there's tons of research into that, but you don't accept that work either. So until someone satisfies you that it definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't just natural causes, you're going with the assumption it was that, every time, because after all we don't fully understand the human body.

In other words, you dismiss the science. You don't think it's necessarily wrong, but don't think people should give it any weight when making decisions about how we live our lives. So, you start calling out authors for talking about cyanide as if it's a poison; they're just perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor, you say. You do argue that congress should put restrictions on cyanide being put in our food, our water, and our air -- but later. You accept maybe there's enough to the science to think it might be harmful if people ingest it over a long enough span of time, but you do argue against the people who say it's a poison that needs to be dealt with right away, because you don't think anyone has a right to be so alarmist about it. After all, the science doesn't say it's important, just, you know, the scientists.

Then one day you run out of amaretto creamer for your coffee, and figure maybe cyanide will be a good substitute, since it does smell like almonds...

My guess is that you probably don't actually do that. My guess is that you trust the scientists and just consider cyanide a poison. My guess is you'd want overwhelming proof that cyanide is safe before you would swallow a cyanide pill. I don't think raising a few doubts about the studies would be enough to convince you -- you'd rather be safe than sorry.

Why the double standard with climate change? What's special about this topic that makes your default assumptions go the other way? Are you sure it isn't something completely unrelated to the science?

If you'd take a break from your tourette-like fit you'd notice that this has been adressed, but then again that would prevent you from casting wily aspersions.>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^RedSky:
Oh, are you just joining our discussion?>> ^cosmovitelli:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Dumbass.


If both people followed your advice they would all be constant losers = dumbass.
(If you really think sociopathic self righteousness is the answer, try a short holiday in Somalia and discover what better people are doing for you every moment of your life)

>> ^RedSky:

Oh, are you just joining our discussion?>> ^cosmovitelli:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Dumbass.



If both people followed your advice they would all be constant losers = dumbass.

(If you really think sociopathic self righteousness is the answer, try a short holiday in Somalia and discover what better people are doing for you every moment of your life)

>> ^RedSky:

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


Dumbass.

@direpickle @RedSky

Game Theory is dumb because it forces us to talk about morality in a vacuum. Real life choices have consequences that go beyond when the cameras shut off or an experiment ends.

That said, direpickle is mostly correct in saying that the "rational" choice, if executed by everyone, results in nobody getting any money. Having said that, how does that make the choice rational...unless you assume the other person does not have the same information as you? In this case you are in effect gambling on the other person having less "game theory information" than you.

You can still be wrong even if the average payout is higher by choosing steal. In any given specific case your payout can still be zero, regardless of your "theory". Really, the only option is, as mentioned, to tell the other person you fully intend to steal, but that you will share half the money if they pick share...and then actually share. If they pick steal even after you say this, you can just call them a moron and go home the same person you were before the show.

They should have the same game show and add in a box of kittens that gets dumped into a giant blender if either person chooses "steal". Y'know, to add in real consequences to the stealing other than "feeling bad", which many people (psychopaths) will not feel.

Your sarcasm would seem to suggest that I would lie about my secretly sinister intentions in a hypothetical example of my own creation.

To make my strategy work though, you'd have to assure the other person that you will steal beforehand and that the only chance they have of getting anything is to share themselves. In a classic prisoners delimma scenario what you said at the end is correct as there's no opportunity for collaboration. >> ^direpickle:

>> ^RedSky:
I'd argue that applying any system of morality is at least partially about punishing bad and rewarding good behavior through your actions, not just being broadly benevolent. And as you said, it goes without saying that the amount of absolute money is conserved regardless.>> ^direpickle:
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.

Absolutely disagree. Stealing is rationally and morally the best choice only if your morals include the sentence, "No one else should have any money if I don't have any money." Split is the best choice, because it guarantees that no matter what happens, the entire sum is paid out.
This supposes that it's better for people to have money than for the game show to have money, though.


Your solution is to pick steal in case the other person decides to be an ass and pick steal to preemptively punish them. You, of course, are going to be a benevolent winner, so it's okay that you're picking steal.
With your plan of action, the moral and rational choice results in nobody ever getting any money, if everyone is moral and rational.