List,
Good try (above). "Wahtever accelerates memetic evolution", though, is a
very broad description. "...[T]hat a new world government might be useful
to redistribute wealth" seems only slightly memetic--I think D.H. is just
preaching his <your message here>.
So, yes, a memetic version of complexity might be different from
"laissez-faire competition"; in fact, it could be an elitist
monopoly--distributing powerful memesets through non-resistent hosts--the
masses.
Memetic evolution would most likely be progressed greatly by acceptance of
context, or issues, and non-acceptance of content, or special
interest...that is, a memeset of issues with few memes representing special
interest would quicken the formation of new memes which would replace the old.
This might translate into <D.H.'s message here>, a new government which
would involve grassroots efforts to make themselves known on a large scale
through dissimination of information. From a top-down perspective (and for
someone who takes an obviously dim view of top-down politics, D.H. tends to
use this perspective quite alot)...from a top-down perspective, this would
involve the established elite to redistribute information on a grand
scale...or opportunity, or flexability...
Brett
At 11:45 AM 10/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Tim Rhodes wrote:
>I wrote
>>> Speaking of taking over the world, does attempting to bring the world
>>> under one rule interfere with naturally emerging complex order?
>
>>Does the attempt increase the complexity of the system or undermine it?
>
>The attempt I have in mind increases the complexity of the system.
>Here are 2 different socio-political theories about how to increase
>complexity.
> The libertarian-oriented paradigm holds that trying to impose order on
>the world by creating a world government only gets in the way of a
>spontaneously emerging order, which naturally yields the most profitable
>results. In this paradigm, the key to greater complexity does not
>consist of any collectivized attempts to govern people, but an attempt to
>leave the free-market alone so that complexity would develop from the
>constantcompetitive market struggle to increase the quality of all goods
>and services while decreasing costs. This competition would not only
>improve the quality and quantity of goods and services, but would improve
>global policies, since those who hold the power to make globally important
>decisions, would be those who are competent to make them--those who succeed
>in the marketplace as opposed to those who simply win votes.
> From a memetic evolutionary paradigm the key to increasing complexity of
>the system is not necessarily laissez-faire competition, but whatever
>accelerates memetic evolution. The progress of our memes determines
>scientific, technological, and other kinds of progress toward greater
>compexity. The memetic paradigm would imply that a new world government
>might be useful to redistribute wealth so that more and more people could
>devote their minds to some type of network which makes progress toward
>memetic evolution.
> I'd say that the memetic paradigm that supports a new world government
>leads to greater complexity than the libertarian system since people could
>afford to spend more energy on the trial and error process required for
>progress as opposed to having to spend time on basic survival actions and
>monetary success. And there would be less energy spent on the cycle of
>needless production and consumption cycle which doesn't always seem to lead
>anywhere. But, is it complexity at a cost? For instance does an individual
>give up his independence, self-sufficiency and freedom by giving up his
>mind to a collectivized neural network which is part of a system he didn't
>necessarily choose?
>
>--David R.
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.