[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Evolution, cooperation, and P2P

But these are economists talking about what effectively simplified market
Are you suggesting that the open source or open knowledge movements are no
different then?    (01)

Also, I'm strongly in favour of judicial independence.    (02)

Peter    (03)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Evolution, cooperation, and P2P    (04)

> What I just found at slashDot goes like this:
> ": "Some Swiss economists ran an investment game... they found that if the
> majority could punish freeloaders, cooperation flourished. I think this
> implications for cooperative peer-to-peer systems and, to a lesser extent,
> for open source development. I'm so inspired I plan to go out an punish
> someone right now, as a matter of fact." I had just read this article the
> other day (go memepool), so this Nature piece seems oddly apropos."
> Following the links, one gets the following two hits, which, I think,
> some useful insights.
> http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Aggression.shtml Aggression in
> multi-player games
> "Imagine that you're playing a game of Settlers and you are the first
> player. You roll a seven, where do you place the robber?
> A couple of months ago several members of the Spielfrieks discussion group
> argued that it was insanity to not use every opportunity to use the robber
> to handicap opponents and steal their resources even at the start of the
> At the early stages of the game I disagree. Here's why:"
> http://www.nature.com/nsu/020107/020107-6.html
> "Cooperation can flourish if the public-spirited majority can punish
> freeloaders, say Swiss economists. People will pay to punish - suggesting
> that their notions of fairness outweigh selfish considerations. The work
> may help explain why people cooperate in society.
> In an investment game with shared profits, players punish those who do not
> contribute to the group's good, despite the personal cost. The emotional
> satisfaction of dispensing justice seems to spur them on: "People say, 'I
> like to punish'," says Ernst Fehr of the University of Zurich.
> The fear of being fined keeps potential defectors in line, and the power
> punish gives willing cooperators a sense of security. These dynamics may
> explain why early humans banded together into cooperative groups for
> hunting or warfare. "
> I would like to suggest comparing these outcomes to the discussion in the
> book _Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the
> 21st Century_ by Howard Bloom, a book that I am perhaps a third of the way
> through now.  Bloom argues that, in evolution, *individual selection*, as
> advocated by neo Darwinists today, is wrong, and that *group selection* is
> more strongly evidenced in the record.
> And why, you might ask, do I mention this here? Simply because the entire
> OHS/DKR thesis is predicated on evolutionary thinking; evolution of both
> the capabilities of collections of humans, and of the software
> infrastructure to support those enhanced capabilities.  The more points of
> view we can access while thinking through OHS/DKR projects, the higher, I
> think, our chances of measurable success (whatever that means).
> Jack
>    (05)