You literally put “Educating people about biological realizm” in the “Ideas For Re-Popularizing Georgism”. What else can you mean by this strategy if not spreading the ideas of BR and then build upon them to spread the ideas of Georgism?
My point was that understanding population dynamics makes people more likely to support Georgism, and that population dynamics is part of biological realism.
It’s at least not obvious, considering that you seen to disagree with George himself about population dynamics. But regardless of whether the objective point is true or not, there are a lot of different things that make people support Georgism—it has intersections with all kind of views across the political spectrum. However, instead of making a general point to take advantage of this versatility, and sell Georgism to different groups of people appealing to different talking points which this particular group would be more likely to be influenced by, you specifically talk about a niche view such as BR.
Even if people deny biology, promoting biological realism is still good for our society, for other reasons. I’d even say that understanding population dynamics is more important than implementing Georgism.
So this seems to be the actual reason why you single out BR like this. Not because it’s actually going to make Georgism more popular, but because you like both of them, you see their connections and you want to spread both of their memes.
Again, there is nothing wrong in wanting to spread multiple memplexes at once, the problem is when you delude yourself and others into thinking that spreading one is a great strategy of spreading the other.
I’m aware that associating Georgism with Biological Realism might damage some of Georgism’s appeal, but that’s a Guilt by Association Fallacy, so I’m not concerned with it.People need to learn to recognize and understand fallacies.
I absolutely sympatize with the last sentence. But whether something is a fallacy or not is irrelevant when we are specifically talking about popularity. Without public appeal Georgism is not going to be popular. And if the public is vulnerable to fallacies, then we should be concerned with them.
If you think BR is so important that burning reputation of Georgism to promote BR is worth it, then please frame it like that instead of misleading people that promoting BR is net good for popularity of Georgism.
Not because it’s actually going to make Georgism more popular
I still insist that understanding population dynamics would make Georgism more popular. That’s the point of what I wrote. You’re just fixating, extrapolating, and nitpicking on a single phrase, which I have now removed from the page, since I want the emphasis in that bullet point to focus on the connection between Georgism, population dynamics, and resource conservation.
The problem is when you delude yourself and others into thinking that spreading one is a great strategy of spreading the other.
I’m not deluding myself. I firmly believe that accurately understanding population dynamics would make Georgism more popular. Are you disagreeing with that?
You literally put “Educating people about biological realizm” in the “Ideas For Re-Popularizing Georgism”. What else can you mean by this strategy if not spreading the ideas of BR and then build upon them to spread the ideas of Georgism?
It’s at least not obvious, considering that you seen to disagree with George himself about population dynamics. But regardless of whether the objective point is true or not, there are a lot of different things that make people support Georgism—it has intersections with all kind of views across the political spectrum. However, instead of making a general point to take advantage of this versatility, and sell Georgism to different groups of people appealing to different talking points which this particular group would be more likely to be influenced by, you specifically talk about a niche view such as BR.
So this seems to be the actual reason why you single out BR like this. Not because it’s actually going to make Georgism more popular, but because you like both of them, you see their connections and you want to spread both of their memes.
Again, there is nothing wrong in wanting to spread multiple memplexes at once, the problem is when you delude yourself and others into thinking that spreading one is a great strategy of spreading the other.
I absolutely sympatize with the last sentence. But whether something is a fallacy or not is irrelevant when we are specifically talking about popularity. Without public appeal Georgism is not going to be popular. And if the public is vulnerable to fallacies, then we should be concerned with them.
If you think BR is so important that burning reputation of Georgism to promote BR is worth it, then please frame it like that instead of misleading people that promoting BR is net good for popularity of Georgism.
Population Dynamics are still part of Biological Realism, so what I wrote isn’t quite wrong, but I’ve edited the page to clarify what I meant.
Have you seen my webpage explaining it? I’m not convinced that George understood population dynamics at all.
I’m aware of this. I’ve written about it too.
I still insist that understanding population dynamics would make Georgism more popular. That’s the point of what I wrote. You’re just fixating, extrapolating, and nitpicking on a single phrase, which I have now removed from the page, since I want the emphasis in that bullet point to focus on the connection between Georgism, population dynamics, and resource conservation.
I’m not deluding myself. I firmly believe that accurately understanding population dynamics would make Georgism more popular. Are you disagreeing with that?