From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 18:07:16 MDT
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Randy S wrote:
> Brin write:
>
> "The fundamental premise of classical liberalism is an assumption that people
> are basically rational and wise.
Actually this is a poor assumption. People are "rational and wise" within
their survival framework -- there is nothing to guarantee that that framework
is "rational and wise". I'll cite the example of Mohammed Ali -- it was
"rational and wise" for him to engage in boxing from the prespective that
he would win the matches be awarded prizes, fame and fortune. However, it
was *not* "rational and wise" from the framework that boxing tends to
cause brain damage and may lead to significant negative consequences
(e.g. Parkinson's like symptoms) later in life. And I don't know if
he had sufficient information to make an "informed" decision until
he became the classic example for why boxing is self-destructive.
So very often people may go after the short term benefits and ignore
the long term consequences (e.g. "live for today for tomorrow you may
be dead).
So one requires a better definition of "rational and wise" that takes
into account the discounted value of present life vs. future life.
Hell, if an asteroid is going to strike the Earth next week and wipe
out a large part of humanity, why shouldn't I break into a store and
steal a plasma HDTV? I at least get to enjoy it for a week. No
significant consequences -- no reason to be "rational and wise".
So it comes down to an ability to predict consequences (which I
believe is a very ill-defined art.)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 18:16:29 MDT