Isitthough117iq
No bio...
User ID: 3016
Isitthough117iq
5mo ago
Well mixing your work into the commons and maintaining it, makes it your property. But obviously the original inhabitants have failed on the second clause.
That just begs the question what social status is. I think ranking is too poor of a definition and instead esteem should be considered at least as an important part of ones social status. Then social status trivially isn't a zero sum game, as we for example could increase the total trust in a system, taking for granted that 'trust afforded' is a component of ones esteem. For example imagine a group consisting of a 1:1 split of gentlemen and Criminal Scum (tm) compared to one that's purely gentlemen. Hopefully I don't have to belabour the point of how the amount of trust and pleasant behavior are different for each group, and how the amount can be increased by decreasing the ratio of Criminal Scum (tm).
I think the closest to zero sum is attention, but even believing that to be zero sum can be likened to believing that material wealth is. Of course there is some maximal bound on both of them, but I don't believe we are anywhere close to saturating the amount of attention that can be given and not either it's quality.
But given that you believe that social status is innately zero sum, how do you think adding people to a system interacts with status? Is the amount diluted or is average kept (per person)?
Wouldn't you expect a negative effect on crime with police patrolling an area, with any feedback-loop being quite short lived? Else it would be a damning fact for patrolling, showing that it doesn't work. Do you have NY report at hand I would love to read it.
More options
Context Copy link