Peterkin

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not willing to give up my shilling.

Yes, don't be in any hurry.

The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds.

It's only wiki, but checkable by interested parties. Coming and going, the corporations get a sweetheart deal from a conservative government; coming and going, citizens get.... the usual. How the Ontario government gets around its subsidy to private electricity providers is through allowing them to pass their debt on to the consumer (of course there isn't a competing provider you can switch to!) plus a "delivery" charge (i.e. use of the infrastructure we paid for when it was a public utility and that we continue to pay for in their debt retirement item on the monthly bill)  and then, if the electric bills are too heavy for low-income consumers, the government sends them  a semiannual  pittance to offset the cost. The private provider risks nothing. 

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes, I offered two examples suggesing that little, if anything, will change.

The pithy French saying is perfectly self-contained and doesn't invite discussion. It also, IMO, quite untrue as a description of societal conditions, though probably true of human nature.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

The fictional example is interesting because, although obviously contrived, it doe (IMHO) accurately mirror the behaviour of real people.

I had not read it. I thought the point was in the title.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

But the punchline came about when one enterprising individual set up a business offering the service of operating a replicator for others.

So, like, seven people in the world have jobs again? Until the rich people's money runs out or becomes worthless .... um, why hasn't it already? Why does this enterprising fellow, or anyone, even want a job?  I can't respond adequately unless I read the story to see what makes it plausible.

I notice a further incongruency with the present situation: in the story, something new and positive was added, while bifurcations in history tend to be marked by the loss of or threat to something vital, which altered the hominids' circumstances so that he had to adapt or relocate. That negative change sometimes comes suddenly, as a flood, or in increments, like the troubles that beset the Roma Empire during its long decline.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I can't seem to see a response/discussion to my answer to your thread question.

That's because I didn't think one was required. I took it to mean you don't think his present situation will have any significant affect on how the world economy is organized. That's a valid position  and quite possibly correct, and it didn't seem to invite discussion. 

I did respond, if not directly, by pointing out that major changes had taken place in previous civilizations. In retrospect, historians can identify the events that led to a collapse, but the people - particularly the political leadership of the time, didn't see it coming.

I woud be happy to elaborate, argue, look for examples and discuss in detail, if you were so inclined.

In Canada, it's hockey. Seems the fans like "the physicality" of the game - meaning fights.

There really is quite a lot not right with professional sport.

I don't know about uniting, but sport has certainly been used by many societies to sublimate aggression and channel rivalry into a manageable form, with rules and far fewer fatalities.

OTOH, those loyal fans can turn into football hooligans in some social climates, and international relations have not been noticeably improved by the Olympic Games. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-olympics-berlin-1936

This is just a personal opinion, but I really don't think the hype is doing sports or athletes any good: the competition is so intense, and the stakes are so big that they're pushing themselves beyond human capacity, burning out too soon and suffering too many injuries. 

And the money is doing a good deal of harm to society. In gambling, in education, in the buying and selling of athletes like prize cattle, in commercial sponsorships, in the inflation of frivolous spectacles to eclipse serious endeavours. 

Also, I think  art, entertainment and games should be play, not work.   

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Has my answer offended you ?

Of course not! Why would it? Why would you think I was offended?

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What has happened is the franchise system for rail blew up. Most of the companies were in financial trouble and the pandemic has holed them below the waterline, forcing the government to step in. Franchises have now been abandoned.

Let me guess! The Tory government bails them out (adding lovely gold life-buoys for the CEO's who scuttled it)  with money collected from the people not rich enough to avoid taxation - the same people who took the hit when their national assets were sold off and they got no dividends, and who have been paying higher transportation fees ever since. Sounds vaguely familiar....

27 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Water privatisation has been fairly disastrous. The companies loaded themselves up with debt, using  their assets as collateral, and paid their directors and shareholders huge dividends and bonuses while neglecting the basic service they were supposed to be providing. Almost every month now there is a new story of operational mismanagement. 

Funny story. It had been a disaster every place it was done (committed?), and for much the same reason every privatized essential service is a disaster. By the time Thatcher's hatcheteers got 'round to it, they had examples to learn from, like Chile.  

The first time I read about such behaviour in corvids was from Conrad Lorenz, who was scolded by jackdaws simply for walking down to the river with his black bathing trunks in his hand - and not, when he wore it. They suspected him of being a black-bird killer. Even though he didn't hunt them, other humans and predatory animals did.

Lorenz was my early introduction to the study of animal behaviour, on which subject, he was more sound than his contemporaries. (In other areas of life, alas, he wasn't.  Don't you sometimes wish you hadn't learned personal details about people you admired?)

I think if you turn it, you expose more of the already burning fuel to air to make it burn faster and hotter, not unlike blowing under it. 

And yet the Mughal empire, the Roman empire, the Mayan empire and the Soviet empire declined and fell over varying periods of time; other kinds of economy have been replaced. It's not a question of whether something will end, but when and by what means. I'm particularly interested in the intermediate steps.

Maybe so, but a couple more pandemics could balance that out.... Unless the delta and lambda variants tip it back again. 

It's those "unknown unknowns" that mess up prediction!

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some things may change forever, but as in the past, we'll all make adjustments.

That's exactly what interests me: what will change and how.

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Did happen when people were draft dodging back in the day. Would be hard for majority but some could definitely manage.

Depends on the administration, the economy, the state of cross-border relations, the public mood ... It's not just up to every American to decide where he'll live; it's also up to the country thus honoured whether it wants him.  The Canadian government was no fan of the VietNam war from its inception, and the Trudeau I government was sympathetic to draft evaders, conscientious objectors and later, deserters. Most of those people were educated and progressive; they made a valuable contribution. (I knew several of them personally, and found them valuable people.)  Of course, quite a few went back, once Nixon backed down, but many had established homes and families here by then. 

I'm not sure how many actually relocated because of Trump, but there was a rise in immigration from the US at that time.

As there have been at other moments of political retrogression. (Not to mention the first lot, in the 1790's)

Quote

a graph of citizenship application numbers would show definite spikes in some politically significant years: 2001, when Bush was elected president; 2003, when the US invaded Iraq; and 2007, during the US housing market crash and recession.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/americans-move-canada-trump-bush-immigration

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We were going to build a wall and make the Americans pay for it...but in our laid back way we never got around to it.

I'm glad we didn't do it! I'd hate to have missed out on Spider Robinson, William Gibson, John Irving, Ted Gonzales and a whole lot of other smart, talented, good people. 

I don't suppose the working class will return? I mean as an identity, as an economic force, as a socially recognized stratum, or as a political faction.

I remember when there was a working class - perhaps even a Working Class - that industrialists and politicians had to take seriously. I know the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney axis staged a major assault on the working class, was very successful with substantial help from Rupert Murdoch et al , and since then, even the the Labour and NDP parties have looked everywhere but straight in the eyes of their support base. Sometime between 1980 and 2010, everyone in the western world became "the middle class, and those working hard to join it" as Trudeau II keeps saying.

Now that they've been told and thanked and lauded for how essential they are (too essential to be allowed to strike, but not so essential as to be in the early vaccination queues) might the underpaid, disrespected workers find a collective will again?

That's a helpful clarification. Thanks.

Are workers going to unite again? Class warfare has been long and fraught with trade unions playing a major role - first, in the betterment of working class conditions and then as the huge and easy target of business-friendly government.

Quote

President Reagan - Reagan Kicked off the era of union busting by successfully shutting out the air traffic controllers union in 1981. After a nationwide strike 3,000 workers were dismissed by Reagan. This was a signal to industry that union busting was o.k. It was also a signal to future presidents and politicians that taking an anti-union stance was not necessarily a political liability.

  https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/19/the-decline-of-unions-is-a-middle-class-problem/?sh=717d2a257f2d

Or will they consider themselves each a free agent, to seek the best deal for themselves, without regard to all the other "essential" workers? 

I thought so at the beginning, when so many businesses had to shut down; travel and tourism all but ceased; borders were closed and people stayed at home to work, study and be entertained. And yet, when I did go out once a week to buy necessities, everything looked the same: same goods, including imported ones, on the shelves; same advertising on TV, only with extra emphasis on home delivery. 

But it seems, something has changed. "Nobody wants to work anymore."

Especially in service jobs.

But maybe not so much in offices, either.

What's going on? Why have people suddenly discovered the exploitation everybody's known about - and lampooned in movies, comedy routines and newspaper cartoons - for decades?

How will this affect capitalism as we have come to know it? 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:22 AM, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Do people actually have this caricatured version of Canada being incredibly cold, all the time, or is this just fallen back on as an excuse for making promises on which one didn't have a plan to follow through?

Yes, many Americans are woefully ignorant about the rest of the world (etc.) and ready to believe any  pithy dismissal that comes around on their social media.

And what with the jet stream getting messed up, Canada is particularly vulnerable to climate change, so, actually it's not much colder than most of the US. This is old news and no secret.

But all that stuff about people "promising" to move here? Obvious hyperbole. It's not that easy to pick up your stuff and move to another country. It is another country - with a border that's still closed afaik, and no easy or instant entry for new immigrants who want to find accommodation and earn a living.

I see your cockatoos and contribute some crows.

Quote

Over time, more crows joined in on scolding the masked researchers. In a little more than a year, over 30 percent of encountered crows reacted, and by three years, about 66 percent did. That percentage has continued to increase.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/grudge-holding-crows-pass-on-their-anger-to-family-and-friends

Looks like everybody is smarter than we give them credit for.  Especially the bird-brains.

Yeah, except pretty soon, we begin to rely on the prognosticators, instead of our own senses and reason, and pretty soon after that, if the predictions are incorrect and the expectations are disappointed, we start throwing babies off towers to bribe gods to send rain.... because too many of the blanks were filled in with guesses, projections, wishes and mushroom dreams. 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

think prediction is the key here, in ways that go beyond a Pavlovian response. The world still follows rules, but the rules might not be simple, which limits the accuracy of prediction (or reconstruction of past events/patterns).

 

So here is another self-feeding, expanding cycle. Memory gives rise to pattern-forming, an ability that confers an advantage. Add imagination and pattern-forming gives rise to prediction - which, if correct, confers a great advantage. Meanwhile, curiosity coupled with intelligence looks for causes, commonalities and rules. So, now we're actively looking for pattern - whether it's there or not. That heretofore useful imagination now fills in all the blanks, invents causative agents and makes up rules.... ^^science vv religion WM art and conspiracy theories ...

5 hours ago, joigus said:

Our ancestors must have had to pay dearly also (in exchange for a brain capable of sophisticated thought) with a high degree of neoteny (delayed development) in human infants as compared to other mammals and, in fact, to other primates. Human infants are notoriously vulnerable and dependent from their family until very late in development.

For developing brains (big enough to implement complex thinking) to pay off in evolutionary terms, there must be a very powerful reason.

It's also a self-propagating cycle. In changing and unpredictable conditions, under a variety of threats, or in transit from place to unfamiliar place, intelligence is very useful to survival. Useful enough to pay its own way in metabolic and defense costs. You may have to come up with novel solutions to brand new problems around every corner.  You also need a greater degree of co-operation among the members of the group. More social interaction requires more sophisticated communication - which, in turn, allows for more effective survival tactics - but language takes up a huge amount of brain-space. In turn, the linguistic function develops branches into other kinds of communication, observation, memory sharing and knowledge pooling, which strengthens the social bonds. 

Being able to store more memory and teach and learn new solutions and skills also enhances survival capability and extends individual life  - but requires more brain capacity, connectivity and plasticity. So the big-brained children are conceived and the ones that grow up are extremely valuable to the group, so it becomes even more important for the group to be socially connected, which takes even more brain capacity, which can take in even more learning and solve even more complex problems.... etc. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315007795 and the next thing you, you're organizing a whole encampment of pyramid-building craftsmen and workmen and camels and caterers. 

Of course, each of those capabilities and social connections has its own price. Imagination may have given us an evolutionary advantage and much pleasure, but it's also given us some very heavy - and perhaps fatal - handicaps.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I don't see why inquisitive intelligence couldn't evolve on a lightless planet.   We are visual creatures,  so we might be inclined to a kind of EM chauvinism regarding how brains may develop.   I only mentioned dolphins as examples of a sensorium that can turn sonic information into detailed 3D representations of the environment, not as hypothetical dwellers on my Darkworld.  A lightless planet would have a myriad of ecological niches just as a lighted one does, and wouldn't be analogous to just cave-dwellers.   Indeed,  a dominant acoustic sense that's greatly beyond ours might afford perceptive powers we lack,  like seeing through walls and into the interiors of other bodies.   Peterkin, I know that you write SF,  so I would think your imagination is more than capable of imagining such worlds.   

I take your point. We could either imagine an entirely different planet, with a whole other kind of life on it, or life on this planet having a different history. All  I've been doing is thinking of this planet, with this same dominant species, the sun, moon, tides and weather, only removing our ability to see other suns.

23 minutes ago, geordief said:

Was the behaviour hard wired in because most of  the survivors happened to be wired that way?

The feeling of volition is just a post factum ordering (complete with coscious or unconscious thoughts )of the hardwired instincts?

Terminology can be deceptive - or rather, inaccurate terminology tends to lead us to incorrect conclusions.

Brains are "wired" in the sense that neurons have long axons and shorter dendrites that reach out from the cell body and look like wires. But they're not physically connected to other cells: it's not actual wiring. And there is no hard-wired anything. There are instinctive responses to the perception of certain sensations and environmental conditions that pass down through DNA from one generation to the next, and are then reinforced by experience. But even the instinctive responses are subject to modification and adaptation, like everything in organic systems. They're slower to change - by a large factor I can't quantify atm - than learned behaviours, because they enhance the species' survival without effort (expenditure of time, attention and energy) on the part of the individual, therefore individuals that have a strong expression of a useful instinct leave more progeny. (When an instinct doesn't serve the organism, it dies out along with the organism it let down.) 

Just sayin' it's more complicated than a circuit diagram.

It must be. In the second trimester of gestation - c. weeks 10-20 - the neurons are forming connections at a furious rate; by the 20th week, all the sensory peripherals are established and feeding information about touch, sound, external motion, body position, balance, temperature, striated and smooth muscle movement into the neural network; even the kidneys are working and the foetus can actually do things voluntarily - like kick and turn and suck its thumb. All of these sensations and activities are processed - that is, placed in an experiential context - long before the mammal is actually born. The template was in the DNA; the pattern is formed by organizing all this early experience in memory. After birth, of course, there has to be another burst of connection-forming as fresh experience floods in. But the pattern already exists for the organization of that new data in the appropriate 'files' and hierarchy of priorities.