Tom wrote:

The only possible stable intervention point is to change what is perceived as self interest AND ensure that the daily workings do not frustrate this (as in teaching cooperation and setting up a competitive context). Along this vein - maybe there should be two domains of activity: Infrastructure domains where long term stability is the primary value, and elaboration domains where competitive flux is the best guarantee of choice and efficiency?

I don't get the elaboration domains.

Another question, why don't people in the advantaged countries, why don't the advantaged in countries, see that their self interest is served by providing a high quality of basic life needs to all? Am I just being a silly idealist?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Answers

Well, in my opinion, which cannot be right or wrong, though wrong- headed it may be, is that the best step is to get people -everywhere- to realize they have to do it for their kid's best interest, and their grandkids, and their....

But at this time, all I see is the "what's in it for me" attitude. People don't give a damn about their kids in the present (e.g., what is the true prime cause of violent juvenile crime, the rate of which is just higher than hell?), why would they care about their future?

I think we have achieved a level of productivity and technology which has essentially done away with the ages old desire to make it better for our progeny. In the eyes of the majority, THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS. If their children are not able to do better, well, that's fine, because this is the good life and there's nothing wrong with their children living the good life, now is there?

If there ever was, I think this is a good reason for a little social engineering, just to plant the vison of what the world willl be like if we in the present don't get our collective heads out...

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Maybe a good example would be that of the telephony industry as that is where I am most familiar. In Canada there was a monopoly structure initially set up so as to ensure service was pushed to all possible subscribers. So - everyone got service, even though the technology had financial limits (I remember in the early 1960's being on a party line where I grew up).

The downside of this was slow propagation of new services and ideas because change was mediated by this large entity. (One ecological upside was that short-sighted opportunities were usually rejected because the increased cost to the system as a whole would be recognized.)

Now we've opened the whole arena to competition there are a lot more services and offerings.

However, everyone is trying to skim the cream. No one wants rural infrastructure because the costs outway any possible profits. So now new subdivisions are getting assessed all of these extra-charges because the main carriers are attempting to adjust their revenues to compete with the newbies that have no overhead. And everyone is attempting to externalize costs, cut maintenance, and layoff people.

My sense is that there should have been instituted a hybrid system that maintained a mandate of basic service everywhere at some low threshold price, and enough of a monopoly over some lucrative segment to pay for this coverage. The remaining segments would then be tossed open for competetive fray and innovation.

Separation of deep and surface processes.

I don't know enough psychology to answer your last question. My guess is that different people use different scope to adjudge what impacts their self interest. Some people's scope takes the environment into account, some take the future into account, some take the impacts on other people into account. Seems to me that this has only become relevant in the last century when we've had enough ergs to posit providing a basic set of needs to all. Both our culture and genetics severely lag this capability.

And no - someone is not a silly idealist to look at the larger scope. Someone is only a silly idealist if doesn't take into account what is underfoot as one sets out on far-off objective. IMHO.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000