4 ms·
I believe you will not come to an agreement with those that find that the opposite is true (‘let builders build’) because ultimately it boils down to one’s outl
by shswkna 4y ago
I believe you will not come to an agreement with those that find that the opposite is true (‘let builders build’) because ultimately it boils down to one’s outlook on life and what we deem important (‘our value system’).
By arguing in favour of regulation, you have a set of assumptions and expectations that support your view. For example, in the literal case of buildings, you might be thinking of rent-seekers and greedy fly-by-nights that build low cost housing in high rises that collapse years later (for example).
I could argue, these were never builders to begin with. They are copying something (very unoriginal) which doesn’t count as building, but is rather a very good example of entropy (of an initial good idea perhaps).
Those builders who really build, as in create, they are precious and rare, and only bloom in an environment of less regulation.
It is one of those many contradiction in life where you have to let the failures through to allow for something new and novel to emerge.
I believe that we owe our own existence to this principle, where evolution was a very wasteful process of many dead ends in terms of life forms that emerged from it but could not persist.
If evolution had been “conservative” I guarantee you intelligent life would not have emerged.
Transfer this principle to the evolution of ideas, or rather, creations, we will also stagnate ourselves into a dead end with our civilisation if the “regulators” ever get the upper hand.
(I am not saying they don’t have a purpose or should not exist; merely that they need to be balanced by the ‘chaotic creators’)
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago"No true builder" fallacy.
- edmundsauto 4y agoYou start with a truism/No True Scotsman, then overlay a theory of everything without any evidence to suggest how construction deaths Are comparable to natural selection. I don’t disagree with you - but it would be worth revisiting how you make this argument. You took all this time to write a nice comment! & here I am, criticizing it, but I think you may need some refinement.
- busyant 4y agoI think, like you said, the comment needs refinement, but I get the point. Basically, if you lean against regulation, clever/imaginative/quality building will flourish, but the price you have to pay is that cheap/shoddy building will flourish, too. The problem for me is that even though I can see the tradeoffs associated with regulation, it's difficult to determine where to set the regulatory "dial." And even if I could set that metaphorical dial with confidence, not everyone will agree with me. :-(
- noobker 4y ago> it's difficult to determine where to set the regulatory "dial." I think about this a lot and have come to this thought: you - specifically - won't get to set the dial at all. Too many political philosophies completely ignore the other for the sake of a perfect solution. This framing of a knob to dial extended imagines a whole switchboard of regulations that can be tuned or turned off. The Democracy video games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_(video_game)) use this metaphor as their core game mechanic. But the reality is that the Other(s) gets to act during and in response to your actions. All this is to say that if politics is setting a knob on a control panel with a precise tuning in mind, reality is an annoying rodent running behind the panel and swapping wires with reckless abandon.
- shswkna 4y agoI’d say that that these two opposites (regulation vs. freedom to just create) will always exist side by side. We tend to argue for one or the other and hope that a clean ideology will emerge from it because it makes our understanding of life so much simpler. But if I continue my way of argumentation, I’d say this ‘pulling of opposites’ is a built-in feature of our existence. The really smart outcomes emerge out of the tension that exist between these opposing ‘forces’. In the case of my evolution example, the two opposing forces are life on the one hand, and death (or the non-living environment), on the other. Very abstract, I know. But this world view has been expressed by at least one thinker who formulated this ‘natural law’ if you might call it that: Henno Martin in this book (I couldn’t find an English translation): https://www.amazon.com/Menschheit-auf-dem-Pr%C3%BCfstand-Menschheitsgeschichte/dp/3540607919/ref=sr_1_7?crid=2X62710HBEUPC&keywords=Henno+martin&qid=1662061885&sprefix=henno+martin%2Caps%2C320&sr=8-7 https://www.amazon.com/Menschheit-auf-dem-Pr%C3%BCfstand-Men...
- wyre 4y agoOthers have commented on the other fallacies in your post but you say >If evolution had been “conservative” When has evolution not been conservative? Tiny changes over the span of generations is certainly not liberal or radical. It took what, hundreds of thousands of years if not more for us to evolve into Homo sapiens and develop intelligence.
- shswkna 4y agoYou are thinking human timescales. The sheer diversity of mindboggling lifeforms that exist and have existed have been everything but conservative. And also very wasteful/destructive.
- wyre 4y agoGoalposts. You specifically mentioned intelligent life, which is dealing on human timescales. You mention wastefulness and destruction which only makes me think of humanities actions in causing extinctions, caused by our lack of regulation or something synonymous.
- shswkna 4y agoWe are arguing past one another or have a different background. I don’t think you have countered my reply.