I'd prefer to preface this discussion by pouring your favorite drink into you, whatever that might happen to be; for this kind of discussion I'm partial to Irish coffee, myself, but it's too hot for that at the moment. Iced sangria, perhaps, or tea if you prefer.
I disagree with your rebuttal, here: Pointing out that a system has a decay property that must be dealt with for that system to continue longer-term is not the same logic, or even the same point, as claiming that the existence of entropy is valid and sufficient motive for despair.
If we assume a benevolent dictator, or even (as Vetinari) a functional and functionally-beneficient chaotic-neutral one, the status 'dictator' creates a succession problem, in that a dictator can subvert whatever successor-selection mechanism may have been devised in the original system.
Your comment about the future is spot-on, and relates to the larger question that I'm still working on in your original post.
If I interpret your list of possible fear-cases correctly, it boils down to "Do *something*", with a separate inferred point of "do something effective and useful", which is much harder, and also harder to *tell*. ("How do I *know* this is useful and effective?") Is that right?
Cut the fourth monkey some slack.
I'd prefer to preface this discussion by pouring your favorite drink into you, whatever that might happen to be; for this kind of discussion I'm partial to Irish coffee, myself, but it's too hot for that at the moment. Iced sangria, perhaps, or tea if you prefer.
I disagree with your rebuttal, here: Pointing out that a system has a decay property that must be dealt with for that system to continue longer-term is not the same logic, or even the same point, as claiming that the existence of entropy is valid and sufficient motive for despair.
If we assume a benevolent dictator, or even (as Vetinari) a functional and functionally-beneficient chaotic-neutral one, the status 'dictator' creates a succession problem, in that a dictator can subvert whatever successor-selection mechanism may have been devised in the original system.
Your comment about the future is spot-on, and relates to the larger question that I'm still working on in your original post.
If I interpret your list of possible fear-cases correctly, it boils down to "Do *something*", with a separate inferred point of "do something effective and useful", which is much harder, and also harder to *tell*. ("How do I *know* this is useful and effective?") Is that right?
Back to stewing on the main point,
Joel