On 07-Dec-08 1:45, somebody wrote:
> 
>> Not sure about the A but the GW could be global warming.
> 
> Anthropogenic Global Warming.

never heard of that. Is that a common expression in some subpart of this 
globe? Even to the effect that you can abbreviate it?

>>> In that case, it should be obvious that had we have lifespans
>>> of couple of centuries or millenia, we'd be doing a lot more about the
>>> issue.
> 
>> It is obvious that it would be even harder to change anything, because
>> everyone in charge had tens of years to dig in and in general disasters
>> tend to not hit those in charge.
> 
> Doesn't make sense. "Those in charge" cannot be in charge for millenia
> without any kind of accountability. 

Not at the moment because people have to transmit power if they die. ;)
OK it probably boils down to the observation that no one has ever ruled 
for more than 50 years. Where you say that is because that is natural 
and I say that is because people die.

> If anything, a short lifespan supports the rich vs poor division. Except a
> lucky few, it's extremely difficult for a poor man to transition to a rich
> man within a few decades. Give millenia, and you'll get more homogeneity.
Given milennia in a *dynamic* society

>>>> There are however people who are (biologically) unable
>>>> to think through the consequences of what they do and don't care what
> it
>>>> means to other people.
> 
>>> There will always be pathalogical cases. There will be religious nuts
> who
>>> don't care about their or others' lives. That's not a relevant argument.
> 
>> Good, because I was not talking about those. I was thinking of the
>> professor that manages to make sure that no one else in his field gets
>> money. About the slightly corrupt CEO that uses his power to keep
>> competent people out of the board. About the man that owns enough media
>> to control much of the information in a country. All not really
>> pathological and all in possession of skills needed to build a
>> company/research field but skills that will result in a lot of trouble
>> for others if left unchecked for too long.
> 
> Good. Because small schemes like that may work for 5 years, but they sure
> won't work for 50 or 500 or 5000. Do you really think it's feasible for a
> professor to hoard a secret for that long or prevent others' grants? 

Unfortunately I have seen it happen for more than 10 years and counting, 
it really will only stop as soon as the person dies. BTW it works like 
this: you know there is not enough money to fund all grand applications. 
So there is a rule that you need, say, nine out of 10 from all 
reviewers. As he is the main person in the field he gets to review the 
grand. He writes a report that it is a very interesting idea and values 
it at 8. In 4 years he has killed most of the competing groups and from 
then on he can add for any group that wants to enter the field that it 
is a very interesting idea but that the group unfortunately does not 
have any experience in these techniques. And I do know a few other 
tricks as well.
Other's may add there favorite way for a CEO or dictator to keep in power.

> I already mentioned that "get rich quick" schemes and screwing your fellow
> humans get more difficult with longer lifespans. 

yes you claimed so and I said I don't believe it.

[]

>> Nothing is wrong being wealthy AFAIAC. It is simply that new wealthy
>> people often tend to have characteristics that are not beneficial for
>> society in the long run.
> 
> Much more than the wealthy, it's poor people who have characteristics that
> are not beneficial to society.

Does not sound like a European way to formulate that. Anyway no poor 
person has individually enough influence to change society.

> 
>> It is relatively OK if they stop working after
>> 65 and hand over to a new generation. Which was my point, I think.
> 
> It would be a miracle if 65, which happens to be the present retirement age,
> to be the optimum retirement age ever, under all possible circumstances.
> Unless you have a very convincing argument that we are currently living the
> ideal lifespan, based on generic principles that are not merely rehashings
> of "is thus ought to" argument, I'm not buying it.

IIRC I already said that I don't know what the ideal age for a human is. 
There is more than one way to look at it and each will probably result 
in a different ideal age.

Post a reply to this message