4 ms·

> I think you're forgetting to control for the fact that the former would be severely punished for doing so, and the latter would be severely punished for not d

> I think you're forgetting to control for the fact that the former would be severely punished for doing so, and the latter would be severely punished for not doing so? > What if you paid them equally to do the same things? I think the larger point is that rewarding bombing, or paying bank officers to evict people from their homes is how the superorganism functions. Your counter examples are like saying 'what if fire was cold instead of hot', well then it wouldn't be fire anymore.

snapplebobapple 1y ago
It is carrots and sticks all the way down...
master_crab 1y ago
To use a quote from of those large corporate leaders (Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger): "Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome"
AndrewKemendo 1y ago
There is no human superoganism, and the reason we’re doomed as a temporary species is precisely that humans cannot act eusocially as a superorganism. By your definition the Moscow Metallica show, Jan 6th riots, etc… were superorganisms and that’s not even barely applicable Humans expressing group behaviors at some trivial number for a trivial period (<1M people for <2 days is the largest sustained group activity I’m aware of) is the equivalent of a locust swarm not even close to a superorganism
dataflow 1y ago
I dispute that? There are plenty of e.g. countries that don't bomb others, especially not for "no reason". (!) And the whole point here was about individuals behaving differently when part of the collective, not about the collective having been set up with different incentives and rules than the individuals were in the first place. You can have collectives with better incentives set up and achieve more humane outcomes. Like I said, such examples really exist, they're not hypothetical.
- xp84 1y ago
  Show me a country that doesn’t bother other countries — ever — and I’ll show you a country that doesn’t have any cards to play. Except for maybe isolated island nations who lack the ability to threaten anyone, all nations come into conflict with others and the only ones that “don’t [initiate aggression with] others” are the ones who lack the ability or who have done the calculation that they’d be severely slapped back if they tried, so they wisely don’t poke the bear(s).
  - Art9681 1y ago
    Well said. No organism willingly commits perceived suicide unless it's a viable strategy for its continued existence. The reason a thing exists, is because it hasn't tempted its potential predator.
  - dataflow 1y ago
    >>> Nobody rational would kill another person for no reason, but a soldier will bomb a village for the sake of their nation’s geostrategic position. >> There are plenty of e.g. countries that don't bomb others, especially not for "no reason". (!) > Show me a country that doesn’t bother other countries — ever Do you by any chance happen to feel like you may have moved the goalposts by at least a tiny inch?
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      The only thing that moved is the word "rational". Soldiers do things out of loyalty, training, or fear - none are "rational" decisions. And I can't name a country that doesn't bomb/attack others. Monaco? Switzerland? Tuvalu?

snapplebobapple 1y ago

It is carrots and sticks all the way down...

master_crab 1y ago

To use a quote from of those large corporate leaders (Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger): "Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome"

AndrewKemendo 1y ago

There is no human superoganism, and the reason we’re doomed as a temporary species is precisely that humans cannot act eusocially as a superorganism. By your definition the Moscow Metallica show, Jan 6th riots, etc… were superorganisms and that’s not even barely applicable Humans expressing group behaviors at some trivial number for a trivial period (<1M people for <2 days is the largest sustained group activity I’m aware of) is the equivalent of a locust swarm not even close to a superorganism

dataflow 1y ago

I dispute that? There are plenty of e.g. countries that don't bomb others, especially not for "no reason". (!) And the whole point here was about individuals behaving differently when part of the collective, not about the collective having been set up with different incentives and rules than the individuals were in the first place. You can have collectives with better incentives set up and achieve more humane outcomes. Like I said, such examples really exist, they're not hypothetical.

xp84 1y ago
Show me a country that doesn’t bother other countries — ever — and I’ll show you a country that doesn’t have any cards to play. Except for maybe isolated island nations who lack the ability to threaten anyone, all nations come into conflict with others and the only ones that “don’t [initiate aggression with] others” are the ones who lack the ability or who have done the calculation that they’d be severely slapped back if they tried, so they wisely don’t poke the bear(s).
- Art9681 1y ago
  Well said. No organism willingly commits perceived suicide unless it's a viable strategy for its continued existence. The reason a thing exists, is because it hasn't tempted its potential predator.
- dataflow 1y ago
  >>> Nobody rational would kill another person for no reason, but a soldier will bomb a village for the sake of their nation’s geostrategic position. >> There are plenty of e.g. countries that don't bomb others, especially not for "no reason". (!) > Show me a country that doesn’t bother other countries — ever Do you by any chance happen to feel like you may have moved the goalposts by at least a tiny inch?
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    The only thing that moved is the word "rational". Soldiers do things out of loyalty, training, or fear - none are "rational" decisions. And I can't name a country that doesn't bomb/attack others. Monaco? Switzerland? Tuvalu?