I have a theory of civilization

 

It goes like this.

 

We start in a primordial state, as individuals

 

We face a choice.

 

Say, for instance - I have a nice sharp sea-shell knife (Properly flaked these can be sharp indeed.)

 

And you have a hand axe.

 

I would like your hand axe.

 

Right there I face a choice.

 

Which is an easier way to acquire your axe?

 

I can steal it from you. But then you'll be angry and try to take back your axe. I have a hand axe, but everyone has to sleep some time.

 

I can kill you and take your hand axe

 

That will eliminate you as a future source of good things. It may aggravate your friends and family to seek revenge.

 

I can lie to you and scam you out of your axe, but eventually you're going to realize that what I said isn't true and we wind up with the same resulkt as having outright stolen it.

 

Or

 

I can trade. I can offer you my knife. Or I can offer some service. I can help you hunt or gather.

 

You'll then have to decide if you want to sell your axe, and for how much.

 

Or if you want to make me one like it, and for how much.

 

-*-

 

Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard extend this into a theory of economics.

 

If you value a sharp knife more than a hand axe, and I value a hand axe more than a sharp knife

 

then we have a mutual coincidence of wants.

 

Either one of us would be more wealthy with both the axe and the knife - but under uncomfortable and possibly dangerous conditions

 

being able to sleep without fear of vengeance is worth something.

 

-*-

 

My theory of civilization is this - it evolves from settling disputes. Trade is a way of expressing my desire for you axe without violence, theft or otherwise treating your poorly.

 

It's a voluntary interaction.

 

but it is aimed at solving my inner conflict that I want an axe and you have one.

 

Similarly you're going to have your own wants, needs and desires which could result in internal conflict if unfullfilled or external conflict if fullfilled poorly or thoughtlessly.

 

conflict costs energy, resources and opportunities.

 

Trade costs less of these and handled with care, trading for needs is far less dangerous.

 

So we aim, in our imperfect, narrow and short sighted ways in the direction of attaining wants with less energy outlay.

 

-*-

 

From this we develop more and more complex interactions. They solve needs and wants in progressively more and more long range and clever ways.

 

-*-

 

You can tell how effective this is by the fact that most of us live in cities.

 

Each of the things that makes our lives better is the result of a long chain of trades, exchanges and action intended to arrive at a better result than was present when it started.

 

Think about that. Your house. The electrical grid. Water treatment. Modern food production and distribution methods. All grow out of a desire to peacefully and efficient gain benefit.

 

Then think of all the unwritten rules we have as a society. Politeness. How we treat each other.

 

Law and the expectation that we should all adhere as closely as possible to it.

 

All Stem from finding clever and efficient ways to resolve conflict.

 

The world around us reflects our desires, I think. Most of us have open, flat, durable streets. COnvinient and sturdy homes. Chairs. Tables.

 

We work. We exchange our labor and effort with others. The specialization has become so intense that many of us participating in it can't track it in any detail.

 

But there's always Cheese Nips and Steaks in the Grocery store.

 

-*-

 

My theory is this

 

All of civilization is an increasingly complex alternative to "Give me what I want, or I'll hurt you."

 

I think it is a proper and good thing to have these alternatives.

 

We see that people who lose sight of this idea beng suffering and chaos to themselves and people around them.

 

I think that much of this was built into us before we were ever human. Pre-humans has hand axes and lived in tribes.

 

-*-

 

However, i think that like any human artifact, we can work it better when we understand why it's there and why it works the way it does.

 

So the goal of Civilization is to provide you and I with an opportunity to fill our needs and wants to the degree possible without having to hurt anyone else to do so.

 

I think that coercion, defaulting to violence is uncivilized. it's anti-Civilization.

 

Worse, foiling this emergent, complex feature of humanity creates imbalances.

 

-*-

 

I was reading Jared Diamond's "Blood, Germs and Steel"

 

He points out that in a primoridal state the worst thing a human tribe could see was another tribe of humans moving into their territory. Under such conditions (Pre-agricultural Revolution) the land had a natural carrying capacity.

 

So new humans would be competitors for finite set of resources.

 

Worse. Human have this wonderful tendency to divide people into in-groups (us) and out-groups (them)

 

In an primordial state, this could be a cruel and vile survival mechanism. A tribe that could shut off it's empathy with people in another tribe could exterminate members of that other tribe more efficiently and proposer on the conquered resources.

 

-*-

 

We humans have never lost this tendency to band into various groups of "Us" and "Them"

 

The sad thing is that largely, it's unecessary and even dangerous.

 

So we're caught in a tension between our social, cooperative nature and our xenophobic, parochial nature.

 

-*-

 

History and current events show preetty clearly that when people let the xenophobic point of view control their image of the world and act out violence against "The Other" - the chaos, death and destruction are the result.

 

The goals are almost never worth it, especially when you consider that there are less costly alternatives.

 

I think any large city shows that we're willing and able to get along, trade and make a mind boggingly complex system to fill our needs.

 

And any given war shows that we're prone to destroy it, when the wrong buttons are pressed.

 

-*-

 

That's my theory of civilization. It'a an alternative to "Or else I'll shoot you."

 

We want it. We like it. When we don't have one, we make it.

 

But there are people who see an opportunity to control, rob and steal and not have to pay the commesurate consequences.

 

These folks are a minority, but we should stay vigilant.

 

Maybe we can teach these folks that even if the front end pay day isn't as high, treating people properly has a really high pay off on the back end.

 

Jay ~Meow!~

 

I just saw -

 

Well "Just" is a relative term

 

this week I rented three movies

 

1 -  "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" -  This is a spoof of music-star bio-pics.  John C O'Reilly goes to town as the clueless Dewey Cox, a fictional Rock Star who shoots to fame and then learns all sorts of interesting life lessons.

 

The story begins with Child Prodigy Nate Cox practing Chopin  at the Cox family's poor Alabama farm house.

 

Dad exhorts Nate and his normal brother, Dewey to go outside and play.

 

"Let's go, Dewey!" Nate exlaims "Nothing horrible can happen today!"

 

That sets the tone for this film.  it's funny.  And the musical spoofs are really funny. Song writers from near and far wrote style pastiches to evoke various eras of rock and roll.  The comedy is fast and loose, but the characters stay true to themselves.

 

I give it an B+.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841046/

 

then I saw

 

2 - "Speed Racer" -  this is a live action movie based on the Anime that was syndicated in the early 1970s in the United States (Along with Kimba).

 

I recall watching the original cartoon as a kindergarten age child and having my intelligence insulted even then.

 

The cartoon took such incredible liberties with Auto racing, physics, geography, cause-and-effect and english diction that it can make Looney Tunes seem calm and rational by comparison.

 

This live action movie preserves that.

 

It's a live action cartoon, and every inch as brainless as the cartoon ever was. Like having a 500 pound Puppy jump on you and lick your face.

 

I just turned off my brain and went with it.  As a live action cartoon, I laughed like a retard and enjoyed it.

 

Dennnis Washburn, one of my best friends and major cinemaphile simply couldn't make that leap of suspended disbelief.  He wandered away half way through the thing.

 

It's worth noting that this film is by the Wachowski brothers who also did The Matrix. 

 

This film is an act of raving fanboy love for Speed Racer.  If you didn't like the Original cartoon,  you won't like this one.

 

John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Christina Ricci and Mathew Fox are in this movie, making it top heavy with acting talent.  A kid named Emile Hirsch  acts his heart out, trying to find the heart of a cartoon character, and coming fairly close.

 

Paulie Litt played Sprittle Racer and made a bid to take back the title of most annoying animated character EVER back from Snarf.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3ZbQiGNkk

 

Mixed Success.  I totally identified with his day dream of being an anime hero.

 

Roger Allam takes his villain role so over the top that he has to borrow other people's mustaches to twirl.  He needs an entire Staff of evil moustaches to show how evil he is, and he seems to be having a real blast.

 

But the most subtle and nuanced performaces were from Willy and Kenzie, who played Chim Chim.

 

That says something.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811080/

 

C+ mainly for adrenalized fun.

 

After that I saw -

 

3 - Futurama - the Beast with a Billion Backs. 

 

I love Futurama. It IS a cartoon and unabashedly so.  Some how, by just not taking it's future all that seriously and randomly jamming science fiction tropes in,  it works.

 

This is a film about Love, Loss,  Romance,  Dating, Jealousy, Conspiracies,  And a Giant monster from an alien dimension.

 

All at once.

 

And some how it works.  It's funny.

 

One of the better science fiction shows. This movie is the second of four direct to DVD sequels to the defunct cartoon series.

 

I hope it makes piles of money and piles of sequels.

 

I give this one an A. 

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054485/ 

Rant - Name a Star for your loved one!

Someone brought up the topic of naming stars

Any good Skeptic will tell you that these sites where you can send in 15.00 to 25.00 or more to get a star named for a loved are scams. They are essentially stealing money from people.

And this is true. However, I don't think it should be.

The reason why this is a scam is this - the body responsible for naming stars and planets is the International Astronomical Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Astronomical_Union

http://www.iau.org/

The places that sell naming a star don't talk to the Astronomical Union.

The reason for that is that the Astronomical Union won't give them the time of day.

Stars and Planets are... bigger than we are. They'll be around practically forever. Naming them is important.

And the Astronomical Union is keenly aware of this.

We don't look up in the sky and wonder at the majesty of the giant planet Lulu. There's a very good reason for this.

Human beings have been pointing to and naming planets and stars since the first human realized that the stars were actually separate things and he wanted to discuss this with the next human over.

You can tell when objects were named. Stars and planets with proper names were viewed and cataloged in ancient times. They ran out of names pretty quick. Gods, devils, angels and historical figures all were used up.

I am pretty sure that some king or another pointed at Canis and said "See that one? that's my star. I own it, and I am going to live in the sky with it when I die. I'll rule there as King as I do now."

This was an intelligence test. The smart primates said "Yes, Your Majesty." and quickly scribbled "His Majesty's Star" over the name "Canis"

But this didn't last.

Since the dawn of modern astronomy, Astronomers have been cataloging objects in the sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_catalogue

It has become traditional to use the catalog designation for stars and objects in the sky.

This is a mark of respect for the astronomers who beat their brains out compiling the catalog (On who's work modern astronomers build)
and it avoids political problems.

The problem with this is that the proper name of J random Star is it's designation in a catalog. "Wo 9127" or something.

But worse.

-------
From Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Blog

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2005/04/29/

"In fact, the star needs a name change: it's now called 2M1207A. The planet is 2M1207b (stars are upper case, planets are lower case, so that's not a typo)."
-------

In order to find anything in the sky - we need a system of navigation. A set of land marks and a way to describe any given object in relation to these land marks.

Astronomy has one. As with names it is based on a mix of tradition, pragmatism and technology.

I don't understand a word of the thing, but that's because I am uneducated. Ignorant.

However this leads to the proper name of J Random Star being it's catalog designation and it's address in this astronomical navigation system.

The proper name of any given stars is a bucket of letters and numbers that will make you eyes bleed if you don't have astronomical training. I can't imagine it's any fun for Astronomers to try and remember, either.

let's stop for a moment and Consider the numbers of stars...

There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. That's roughly five stars for every man, woman and child on earth. 2 and half for every man, woman and child who has ever lived.

If you ask a computer "Fluffy Bitbucket Smith" and "Wo 9127, 03 44 22.1, +24 46 00" are essentially the same - random strings of numbers and letters.

All we really need is for any random string of numbers and letter to be unique.

However "Fluffy Bitbucket Smith" is a designation that fits natural human pattern recognition equipment.

it doesn't disadvantage a computer any and could help an astronomer remember which star he's observing.

So my premise is that the International Astronomical Union should, in fact, adopt the scheme of selling naming rights to Stars for $10 or $15 dollars.

It helpfully assigns a string of essentially random letters to any given star.

It won't happen. IAU has a stick. And Star Naming schemes have been scams for a long time.

So professional Astronomy has a very justified, but somewhat uptight "Not invented here" reaction to Star naming scams.

Also - the people who sell such things know - they know for a fact that what they're selling is not true. No matter how much money Mister Smith pays, J Random Star will never be known as "Fluffy Bitbucket Smith" in honor of his late lap-warmer.

http://www.starregistry.com/

So the guys selling this "Service" know that they're lying to their customers. That fraud. It's stealing.

I don't want to seem to be advocating theft.

I am advocating going ahead and naming stars, asteroids, planetoids and so on after people, animals, historical events, fictional characters and so on.

And that's all I got to say about that.

Jay ~Meow!~

Rant "Science!"

 

A lot of people don't realize that the science community is like a pit of hungry tigers, waiting for the next paper to be dropped in and shredded.

 

I was listening to "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe." - they were having a dispute with another podcast.

 

Conflicting Podcast - "This guy has a study that shows that Dogs can psychically predict the arrival of their owners back home."

 

SGU - "The study was poorly constucted and a crock. The meta-analysis of prior studies was dumber than they usually are, and meta-analyses suck."

 

ConPod - "You guys were totally mean and hostile!"

 

SGU - [Paraphrasing] "It's SCIENCE, you [darn]! Get a helmet and stop being a [darn]!"

 

In "Science!", you develop a theory, and supporting data, and then other scientists try to kill it. Most die, but the ones that survive are scary bad[darn] theories.

 

Win is killing a unfit idea and showing it's head to the audience. "This idea was WRONG and I destroyed it FOR SCIENCE!!"

 

MAJOR win is when your theory is standing at the end of the battle.

 

The science community stabbed, beat and kicked anthropogenic global warming with sticks, knives and guns.

 

And now most of them, particularly the ones who publish and throw ideas ideas into the pit to fight to the death their own selves, are saying - "It lived."

 

There's no end to this. Newton, Einstein, Hawking. Their ideas get attacked and shredded (Actually the stuffed corpses of Newton's are on display in the entry halls of "SCIENCE")

 

There's no point at which a referee blows a whistle and declares an idea THE TRUTH.

 

You just look for the people who go into the pit and kill ideas for a living (And for joy) and if they shake their head and say "I couldn't take it down." This is a clue.

 

Few people debate the idea that the earth is round. This is a major tough idea. It has many lines of defense and counter attack. You better be a tough [darn] to go after this idea. Everyone who has tried has wound up on the ground so far.

 

These days the people who go after this one are like the angry little man at the bar who gets [darn]-faced and goes after the biggest guy he can find "WASH'ER YOU LOOKIN' AT!?!?! HANH!?!?"

 

Loons. Idiots. Masochists who enjoy the beatings with facts they get.

 

It's still in the arena. If you get a new fact, you may just have a chance to take it down. Good luck with that.

 

Most of the people who are attacking anthropogenic global warming are going after it with rubber chickens and rainbow colored fright wigs. They are not equipped for that fight.

 

Parsing out who has the right weapons and the right knowledge to make a run at this idea is hard for us in the civilian world.

 

I am hearing from the people in the pit with knives. They are reporting that this thing is tough. I am hearing from people who have court side seats, and occasionally get a scientist in their lap from a foul. This thing is winning the fight. It's way ahead on points.

 

The most difficult thing is trying to track down just who knows what they are talking about.

 

because this pit where Ideas and scientists go to fight to the death -

 

It's not just one place. It can't be. There's no official coloseum. there are dozens of unofficial coloseums.

 

In this metaphor the arena in which an idea fights for it's life is a journal.

 

The Skeptoid Podcast did a wonderful discussion of how to tell a legitmate journal.

 

The creationists have been setting up thier own journals. Padded rooms where they tap "Intelligent Design" with boffers and yell "IT WINS!"

 

This poor idea doesn't get three steps out of the front door before wild scientists shred it alive. It screams and is gone. The creationists drag it's little mangled corpse back to safety, prop it back up and try again.

 

I don't know about this Maunder Minimum idea. The sources I have read say it's not steady on it's feet and is bleeding here and there. It's standing, but who knows for how long?

 

This new Maunder Minimum? It's a baby fresh out of the chute. Let's give it some time and see if it survives a real fight.

 

The guys who threw it into the pit. How credible are they? How tough are they? How well do they know their [darn]?

 

Maybe they are like those happy people who load a bunch [darn] with whoopie cushions and bunches of fruit into a clown car and cry when a wild scientist slaughters it like a ding dong at an over eaters anonymous meeting.

 

Any idea can be thrown into the pit. Most likely, it will get butchered mercilessly. THAT'S SCIENCE!

 

People who are too attached to their pet ideas get bit and loose their fingers.

 

Science is not for the faint of heart.

 

I love it.

 

Jay ~Meow!~