X-Message-Number: 22068
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:01:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Libertarians and cryonics
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 11:00  AM, Steve Bridge wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps the most basic conflict in human nature is the self vs. the
>>> tribe
>
>> If we speak on the evolutionary level, then we also have to 
>> acknowledge
>> the conflicting survival drives between the self vs. the cell
>> (selfish-gene type theories). Here it is more obvious that it is the
>> balance of conflict and cooperation that is crucial. That is, one can
>> have both high levels of conflict and high levels of cooperation.
>
> Yes, but it not obvious that this is 1) a *greater* conflict that 
> individual vs. tribe; and 2) that this other conflict says something 
> about cryonics.

The point here is not either of these, just that conflicts can be 
present even when cooperation is essential for survival on the most 
basic level.


>
>>> As the concept of individuality grew, the conflicts within families 
>>> and
>>> tribes no doubt grew also.
>>
>> There is no reason that individual identity and group identity can not
>> grow simultaneously. For example, in a negotiation you might get to
>> like someone on the other side as an individual, but at the same time
>> oppose them strongly for their group position.
>
> There may be no reason why they *can* not; but there are centuries of 
> examples to show that they most often *have* not.  That's like saying 
> that there is no reason that Christians (or African Americans or any 
> other group we might be interested in) cannot become cryonicists.  
> Well, sure; but the more interesting question is, "So why haven't they 
> done so?"

The point I am trying to make is that it is more correct to consider 
individual and group identity as independent factors that can go up and 
down together, just as well as inversely.

It isn't obvious that these historical examples actually add up to 
anything. Basic social psychology suggests the opposite. That is, 
stronger group identity will make for stronger individual identity 
(social identity theory).


>
>>> The result is that, while cryonics organizations may be largely made 
>>> of
>>> people who are more or less "libertarian" in personal nature, 
>>> cryonics
>>> organizations themselves are not libertarian or even democratic.
>
>> The lack of democracy is a threat. More democratic organization could
>> probably have prevented the one cryonics 'meltdown' from occurring.
>
> Now there is a nearly endless debate.  However, Mike Darwin once 
> pointed out that such splits are nearly inevitable as organizations 
> grow larger.  He had read an account of a society of beekeepers that 
> split up in a series of accusations and ill will pretty much like what 
> happened with Alcor in 1993.

I was referring to the literal 'meltdown' in Chatsworth, not the 
figurative one at ALCOR. However, one could counter that there was no 
real organization at all in that case, merely an individual with a 
business name.


> My personal feeling is that more democracy in that case would simply 
> have shifted which individual members split off into a new group.  
> There were deep divisions in both personalities and in opinions on how 
> a cryonics organization should be run.  And with perhaps the biggest 
> problem being that very few of the activists would have conceded that 
> the word "opinions" applied to their ideas.

My opinion of this is that it was precisely the libertarian fanaticism 
that caused this problem. That is, that Objectivism is a religion (see 
the book by that title) and therefore such divisions are inevitable.


>
>>> Back to the "libertarians vs. socialists" debate: Personally, I
>>> believe that no "pure" form of political philosophy is likely to be 
>>> >>successful with any group much larger than 100 people, because it 
>>> is too >>hard to agree on one's principles and rules with larger 
>>> groups. And >>"agreement" is what holds such a group together. 
>>> Larger groups stay >>together partly through various forms of 
>>> coercion -- legal, social pressure, or outright force -- or they 
>>> split into new groups.
>
>> Not obvious. We are confusing political organization and economic 
>> >organization.
>
> Ah, but "we" didn't write the article; and perhaps *I* am confusing 
> things a bit.  However, my observations tend to be that the two things 
> are hardly ever separate.  Thinking as a "Libertarian"  tends to 
> influence one's choice of economic models and practices.  Being a 
> "capitalist" or a "Marxist" or a "collectivist" of some shade tends to 
> make one look for political systems which can support the economic 
> result one is looking for.

I would agree that both economic and political theory deal with methods 
of coordinating social life and that the distinction between them is 
not useful in the final analysis. However, as long as we maintain the 
distinction, it is necessary not to mix the terms from the different 
fields. No doubt there is some correlation between preferences. For 
example, since Libertarians (of the American type) worship capitalism, 
the correlation will be high in that case. But there are also counter 
examples, such China today, which, while remaining a Marxist type of 
state, has fully embraced capitalism.



>
>>> We concede enough authority to the different tribes around us to 
>>> make >>sure things get done and that we feel as safe and comfortable 
>>> as
>>> possible, while having certain borders of personal freedom that we 
>>> are unwilling to have the tribal leaders cross.
>
>> A more accurate model is that people choose which leaders to follow.
>
> Another interesting debate, which may be like the riddle of "which 
> came first -- the chicken or egg?"  One sentence isn't enough for me 
> to consider the depths of what David means here.  I would say that 
> there is plenty of room to question it either way.  Maybe sometimes we 
> choose a group by the general feeling it gives off and the leaders 
> don't matter very much.  Or maybe most people don't "choose" at all; 
> but simply follow what they were expected to do.  How many children of 
> Republicans or Democrats vote the same way as their parents?  (That's 
> not rhetorical; I really don't know what the answer is.)  Or maybe we 
> do follow a particular leader because we find we like what he tells us 
> to do and we are looking for someone to make major decisions for us.

Hero or leader 'worship' is considered to be a common mode of dealing 
with death anxiety. For many people it may be the only one. There is a 
lot of very solid and enlightening research on this:

http://www.ernestbecker.org


dss

David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22068