There were some gospel equivalents to this that came to mind. Clearly, some people think that the Law of Consecration is a kin to socialism, in that everyone contributes and everyone withdrawals. I suppose it depends on ones perspective, but I see vast differences. The LC seeks to aggrandize (glorify) every single individuals as much as possible, through cooperation. We want to be better, know more and have more power, and we can do that more quickly by cooperating and sharing, learning from each other serving each other, and trading skills which allow us to gain intelligence more quickly since we will be able to use, for example, the ideas of each other to free up time to learn. (I guess a concrete example is: had one person invented the dishwasher and given it to everyone to use, we could all have more time to learn calculus...) Thus, each individual wants to contribute out of love, yes, to give more to others but also as to self-aggrandize themselves through expected reciprocity of blessings. Socialism seems to focus on finding the lowest level of equality. Thus, if one person has 91 units of X, and there are also nine people with each 1 unit of X, socialism seems, at least to me, to make each of the ten people have 10 units, after some organized system gets involved. Wouldn't it be better if the person with 91 units teaches, shows, helps, the other nine people how to get 91 unites themselves. That seems to be another level of equality which is significantly higher and no one person has been reduced.
Anyway, Axelod discusses this Theory of Cooperation in other ways as well, including: Robustness, Viability and Stability. Cooperation seems to win out over time, it can withstand attacks and is more stable. Everything, in my mind, that a group of individuals would want. So why is it that we aren't on board with it? Biology seems to accept it. It must be that the one assumption which makes it effective is invalid, that there is a finite number of encounters. Thus, it would be in my best interest to kill someone and take there 50 dollars from their wallet if I never see them again. But if I do see them again would it be wise to gain more by allowing them to live more, thus work more, thus make more, and then kill them... But at that point, the analysis is the same, and one should thus let them live indefinitely! Okay, but what about my payoff? I need to kill him to get any money right? I don't think so. Surely there is something that he wants, (perhaps even more than once) that you can trade with him at multiple encounters. (I suppose he wants to keep his life each time, so even that "commodity" would work...)
Anyway, I have some issues with Axelrod's analysis and assumptions. At times the payoff matrix is not constant and so strategies break down. Also, the numbers have to fit certain criteria to be valid and at times there may not be a difference in value between strategy A and B. So, if that is the case, a random decision or at least one based on other criteria is more realistic. Still, the foundation problem and arguments really gets one thinking about why humans are so "cooperation-averse." Do we really feel that we don't have anything to offer some one else? Or do we really feel that no one else has something to offer us?
I suppose this give new meaning to the principle that we cannot be saved without our dead and they cannot be saved without us. It's all or nothing. (Because mathematically it is too in a way!)
Here's the reference... (but no link)
The evolution of cooperation
R Axelrod
Science 27 March 1981:
Vol. 211. no. 4489, pp. 1390 - 1396
DOI: 10.1126/science.7466396
No comments:
Post a Comment