From: Stuart Armstrong (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2009 - 03:58:31 MST
And yet the more cohesive societies in the world are (in general) the
less productive, weakest and poorest. You can nit-pick - Norway versus
Somalia - but cohesion, or societies acting as one, does not seem to
be much of an advantage at all, outside of certain narrow
The reasons for this are long and complicated (the easiest aspect is
to look at classical economics), but the fundamental point is that
acting as one is only a useful thing to do if the action to take is
clear, and if a centralised decision process can implement it
efficiently. That's why vacination is centralised, but computer chip
2009/2/10 Stefan Pernar <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Stuart Armstrong
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Would yo mind giving me a specific example or two so I understand where
>> > you
>> > are coming from?
>> Can you define what you really meant by "Weak morals weaken and strong
>> morals strengthen societies"?
> Let me try :-) I am working on putting my thoughts into book form so a few
> sentences may not be enough.
> Two aspects:
> 1) Strong morals would let a society ideally act as one and thus with
> maximum efficiency.
> 2) Strong morals would ideally eliminate the egos of the individual and as a
> result allow a society to act with the best interest for others in mind
> I believe that these aspects would increase a society's evolutionary
> You can find more at http://rationalmorality.info
> Stefan Pernar
> Skype: Stefan.Pernar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT