Re: virus: Taking Over the World (was: Sign Off)

Brett Lane Robertson (unameit@tctc.com)
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:42:14 -0500


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. (D.H.)

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.