X-Message-Number: 20219 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: The non-inevitability of progress with change in economic incentives Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:54:21 +0100 What this is actually saying seems to be that in order for there to be overall progress, there has also to be progress in legal practice. Law, after all, is really a discipline for getting at the truth in a time limited situation. Science is also a discipline to get at the truth, but there is no time limit in getting it. At present, the idea of having two opponents each to argue a case is deemed to be the best way of getting at the truth within a time limit. If a better method can be devised, possibly with machine assistance, then maybe progress can resume. One of the most disturbing chances in legal practise seems to be the fact that lawyers no longer seem to regard themselves as "officers of the court" but go all out to win, This can even mean withholding vital evidence known to them but not the other side or even preventing witnesses from giving it on grounds that it is "unsound" rather than "untrue". I think that the profession is aware of these limitations and from time to time tries to introduce measures to circumvent them. On the financial aside, it has been suggested that accounting scandals have only emerged because shareholders are doing badly. These scandals were there before, but during the long bull market no one cared that much as quotations were rising each year. Another problem with finance is that insurance companies are reliant on stock market growth. Premiums are likely to rise if growth is not available to them, and if they are driven into "distress sales" of stock then quotations can fall further. However quotations cannot fall below zero, so the rate of decline is going down, unlike when there are rises and the rate of rise increases the higher the market gets. [This is not true of the Lloyds insurance market as portfolios can fall below zero there, making the risk and also the rewards higher.] Cryonics needs to keep people cryopreserved until such time as reanimation to good youthful health becomes possible. As long as they can be kept cryopreserved, then it doesn't really matter whether this is 60 or 600 years. However the longer the period, the greater the risk of cryonics failing not because the universe doesn't support such an idea on a physical basis, but human civilisation destroys it simply so that certain individuals can earn themselves salaries. There are lots of things to go wrong, we know that. However signing up is still better than not signing up, and if the anthropic principle is correct, then you can only observe a universe where all this sorts out in the end. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://www.deRivaz.com : http://www.AlecHarleyReeves.com http://www.longevity-report.com : http://www.autopsychoice.com : http://www.cryonics-europe.org http://www.porthtowan.com > Message #20213 > From: "Mark Plus" <> > Subject: Re: The non-inevitability of progress > Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:53:44 -0700 > > Now we spend our lives playing postindustrial > "games between persons," as sociologist Daniel Bell characterizes them. In > such an environment, where skill at hominid politics matters more than > getting physical reality to do what you want, scientific & technological > knowledge will be devalued. <del> > parasitic professions like law, where you practically have a license to > confiscate wealth accumulated by others if you play the game skillfully. The > change in economic incentives in this country makes the sustainability of > progress less of a sure thing than it seemed 30-40 years ago. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20219