What’s “pro-social” and “anti-social”? In particular, what if you’re pro-social, but pro-a-different-social? Consider your standard revolutionaries of different kinds.
Pro- and anti-social are not immutable characteristics. People change.
If access to technology/power is going to be gated by conformity, the whole autonomy premise goes out of the window right away
Pro-social is not trying to take over the entire world or threatening . It is agreeing to mainly non-violent competition. Anti-social is genocide/pogroms, biocide, mind crimes, bio/nano warfare.
I’d rather no gating, but some gating might be required at different times.
Heh. If you think there’s any such thing as “non-violent competition”, you’re not seeing through some levels of abstraction. All resource allocation is violent or has the threat of violence behind it.
Poor competitors fail to reproduce, and that is the ultimate violence.
If the competition stops a person reproducing then sure it is a little violent. If it stops an idea reproducing, then I am not so sure I care about stopping all violence.
Poor competitors fail to reproduce, and that is the ultimate violence.
Failure to reproduce is not the ultimate violence. Killing someone and killing everyone vaguely related to them (including the bacteria that share a genetic code), destroying their culture and all its traces is far more violent.
If it stops an idea reproducing, then I am not so sure I care about stopping all violence.
Ideas have no agency. Agents competing for control/use of resources contain violence. I probably should back up a step and say “denial of goals is the ultimate violence”. If you have a different definition (preferably something more complete than “no hitting”), please share it.
Let’s take something old, say the French Revolution. Which side is pro-social? Both, neither?
Let’s take a hypothetical, say there is a group in Iran which calls the current regime “medieval theocracy” and wants to change the society to be considerably more Western-style. Are they pro-social?
A few issues immediately come to mind.
What’s “pro-social” and “anti-social”? In particular, what if you’re pro-social, but pro-a-different-social? Consider your standard revolutionaries of different kinds.
Pro- and anti-social are not immutable characteristics. People change.
If access to technology/power is going to be gated by conformity, the whole autonomy premise goes out of the window right away
Pro-social is not trying to take over the entire world or threatening . It is agreeing to mainly non-violent competition. Anti-social is genocide/pogroms, biocide, mind crimes, bio/nano warfare.
I’d rather no gating, but some gating might be required at different times.
Heh. If you think there’s any such thing as “non-violent competition”, you’re not seeing through some levels of abstraction. All resource allocation is violent or has the threat of violence behind it.
Poor competitors fail to reproduce, and that is the ultimate violence.
If the competition stops a person reproducing then sure it is a little violent. If it stops an idea reproducing, then I am not so sure I care about stopping all violence.
Failure to reproduce is not the ultimate violence. Killing someone and killing everyone vaguely related to them (including the bacteria that share a genetic code), destroying their culture and all its traces is far more violent.
Ideas have no agency. Agents competing for control/use of resources contain violence. I probably should back up a step and say “denial of goals is the ultimate violence”. If you have a different definition (preferably something more complete than “no hitting”), please share it.
There was a reason I mentioned revolutionaries.
Let’s take something old, say the French Revolution. Which side is pro-social? Both, neither?
Let’s take a hypothetical, say there is a group in Iran which calls the current regime “medieval theocracy” and wants to change the society to be considerably more Western-style. Are they pro-social?