Quote Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan View Post
I'm interested in an example of this.
This really can be seen in everything. Take having a child for example. Would you say that the consequences of that decision are numerous, dynamic, and largely unknown? Sure. But would you also say that a person desired whatever consequences developed out of their decision to bear children because they chose that course of action? Probably not

How many parents do you think are cognizant of the probability of their kid being born with one of many unknown disorders, or dying prematurely in an accident, or not being that skilled at life, or that their own parenting isn't as good as they figure it will be? I see tremendous consequences to the decision to bear children that are neither predictable nor desired, and this is how it is for just about everything.

If you're caught up on my usage of the word 'evolution', what I should say is that the theory of evolution doesn't suggest that organisms develop rationality or any form of categorical skill or perception, but that organisms develop tools which allow them to utilize their environment better than the competition. This theory predicts that organisms would therefore have flawed perceptions and tools in literally every area imaginable. Nature doesn't 'care' about doing things right, it 'cares' about simply being better than the competition, and that's all



I enjoyed reading about the tragedy of commons. But my question is why is it impossible for the herders to have the perception that William Lloyd has? All that seems to be outlined here isn't a situation where peoples interests always creates an outcome worse off for both, but instead a very tricky situation in which it is hard to perceive what really is the right course of action.
It's not that it's impossible, but that it's a social paradigm which seems unavoidable for our species. It doesn't HAVE to be this way, it just IS this way. We're kinda stuck within our limitations, and have to work with what we got. While it is hypothetically possible for the entire community to be on some order of enlightenment, that's just not how our society works at this point, and the data has shown that the better results in mitigating our limitations comes out of 'artificial' regulation

So what is government doing in this situation? Protecting the intelligent ones from the stupid ones?
Well, the purpose of governance here would be to mitigate the effects to the best benefit of the society. This would take a very very good governing system made up of the people and for the people (not what the system in the US is evolving into). The point isn't about what should be done or what is right, but with how things work. And the way things work in human civilization is that there are numerous built in exploits based on actions that humans naturally gravitate towards which could be partially mitigated by a good regulatory structure.

Take a very powerful virus for example. We've all heard about how a virus can be so powerful that it kills itself off by killing its hosts at a quicker rate than its ability to transmit to another host. Now imagine if this virus was individually conscious and were able to artificially alter their consumption and transmission rates in a way that their entire civilization doesn't annihilate itself. They would have to do this via some form of regulatory system that made the virus act in a collective manner because without that regulation they will naturally gravitate towards consuming beyond capacity.

It's the same for humans. The purpose of governance is to counteract our indigenous flaws and enhance our indigenous strengths. This can, and is often, misused, and government is on the order of totalitarian. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's no coincidence that the happiest societies on the planet are also the most socialist i.e. have the government made up of mostly its people and regulates to value the community as a whole