http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

1) I agree with what you have said. I'm not sure if you followed my point, but you can think of it like DRM: content producers/distributors distrust their customers and that has the unintended consequence that their customers (due to the DRM anti-feature) look to other sources for their content, some illegal sources. The environment of distrust creates bad behavior.

2) I have three hobbies: robotics, coin collecting and making music. There is nothing inherently wrong with money or physical things or pasttimes. I didn't say there was. Materialism is a philosophy or culture of placing material things at the highest rank of importance and possibly even denying any other important things. American society is _not_ purely materialistic. For example, the importance of liberty in American society is non-materialistic. Nevertheless, my experience of the Bay Area/Silicon Valley is of an extreme of Materialism.

3) Toronto is also home to some of the largest refugee communities in the world and is incredibly diverse as a result. I'm not going to claim that Toronto is more or less harmonious/integrated than the area in California. What I _am_ saying is that there is a notable hypocrisy of an outwardly-seeming open, inclusive culture that tolerates some pretty extreme ghettoization. (White) people there seem very proud of their moral relativism, tolerance of diversity, etc. and yet that pride seems to ignore the social responsibility for some deep race-related problems. They may have their immediate causes based in bad government. But the root cause is clear to outsiders (including many of those who are refugees there, that I have spoken with): racism.

4) Moral bankruptcy? An environment of distrust, extreme materialism, and hypocrisy. But again, that wasn't my point. My point was that when you live there, the culture is so powerful that, for me at least, it became my culture even though I was fighting it. I only really realized how much it had effected me when I moved away. Moving back again, I was there for mercifully short periods of time and did not feel as deeply effected. I have discussed this effect with other outsiders and they have experienced similar things. Not only is the area morally bankrupt (which is different than saying any individual is so), but it is pervasive and persuasive.

I am financially successful. I have a very nice house, I have a successful business and I am not bitter about other people's success. I'm not (quite) a millionaire, but I'm in the top five percent of income earners in Canada, and probably top 1% in my city. However, my success is not solely based on pursuing material aspirations. I also try very hard to "do good" for it's own sake. I have been very poor (to the point of living on state assistance) and I have also been close to financial bankruptcy twice in my life. I _don't_ believe that my current success is solely due to my own hard work. There is a very good portion of luck and other good people thrown into the mix. I can clearly identify several points in the development of my career when the only reason I succeeded is because I made what seemed an arbitrary choice that happened to be "correct".

Doesn't suck to be me :-)

I agree that there are some people whose behavior is almost exclusively anti-social, or even could be called sociopaths. I believe that there is still the possibility of reform/redemption for these people, but I'm not an expert and so I would not claim to have a "solution". I have met one person that I think may legitimately be called a sociopath, but it was a long time ago. The experience was incredibly damaging to me in many ways and I am no longer in contact with that person.

I haven't reversed cause and effect. I have only observed that there is a negative feedback loop in the US that does not exist everywhere else (although I would guess it isn't exclusive to the US). Not only that, but I am not trying to say every individual behaves the same way or can be painted with the same brush. Certainly there are muggings, but I would hesitate to say that there are "muggers".

Actually, what I am saying is not so foreign to the "Slashdot mind". I mentioned this in another part of this thread: Slashdotters commonly bring up the idea of DRM as an anti-feature on [software|music|movies] that perpetuates "pirating". In other words, the environment of distrust on the part of producers and distributors of digital content creates a higher likelihood of bad/illegal behavior on the part of potential users of that content. This is not so difficult an example for people in the US to understand because it is very specific and falls within the American cultural norms of rebellion against authority. The example that we started with, a street attack, is not so obvious because that environment of distrust is not as specific nor as directly connected to the behavior. Nevertheless, my observation is that _any_ environment of distrust breeds bad behavior, and any environment of trust encourages good behavior. The boundary conditions are what is interesting: in an environment of trust, if someone breaks that trust, how do people in the environment respond to that breech? Do they then start to distrust (and put in place policies, procedures, institutions, etc. that formalize that distrust)? Or do they continue to work within a culture of trust (and put in place all the things that can help to recover from the breech)?

I didn't defend myself because, fundamentally, it was not a developed habitual reaction. I can't claim that in the moment of attack I did a deep rational analysis of the situation. Instead, I simply lacked a defensive response habit and so I didn't defend myself. As it turns out, the situation defused itself and I lost nothing in the exchange. I believe that it was simply time passing that allowed the situation to become defused: the attacker lost energy. (I'm guessing there. I don't really know what was going on inside the person chemically, emotionally, etc.) I also want to point out that I am not naive enough to believe this would always "work". Certainly some attacks conclude with death, rape etc. even with passive response on the part of the attacked person.

And to repeat, I don't scorn others who do defend themselves. What I am concerned about is perhaps over-reaction or escalation. Honestly, I haven't thought it through to make _any_ generalizations and I suspect that I could only respond on a case-by-case basis to such things.

Actually, I feel that in America the individual is almost completely debased. Consumerism, culture of fear and distrust, breakdown of the extended family and the neighbourhood all lead to individuals behaving more like animals and less like noble, social beings. Individuals can certainly become excellent through their own hard work and choices, but there seems to be a real lack of recognition that "the individual is organic with their environment": there isn't simple first cause (individual merit) and then lots of effects (success in life). Instead, there are complex feedback systems where the environment limits, changes or empowers an individual and individuals make choices that in turn limit, change or expand their environment. Since the environment includes other people who are also making choices, we need to recognize both our liberty and our responsibility: through our choices, no matter how personal, we limit, change or empower other people.

Hmm. Not tolerating violence against innocents... this is certainly an important foundation of society. No argument there. But one individual self-defending is not the only way (nor in my opinion the best way) of a society not tolerating violence against innocents. I don't consider self-defense reprehensible! I am actually often impressed by people who are able to defend themselves... and even more impressed by people who are able to defend themselves and at the same time transform a violent environment/encounter to a non-violent environment/encounter... and _even_ more impressed when that transformation goes from violence to forgiveness, love and the mending of hearts. (I'm not good at this, fwiw.)

I would like to use an analogy with healthcare. There are preventative techniques and healing techniques. Both are important. American society seems to prefer institutionalizing healing techniques and leaving preventative techniques mostly up to the individual. This is partly because of the question of freedom (I guess). But it has the consequence that it is much easier for people to become unhealthy due to lack of institutional support for preventative techniques.

The same could be said about violence. There are certainly both preventative and reactive techniques. Again, American society seems to prefer reactive techniques (the justice system, self defence) rather than preventative techniques. I've already mentioned some reasons I believe this to be the case, but most of it is rooted in a history of British colonialism and subsequent rebellion. In Canada we never had that. In fact, Canada is one of very few countries that gained independence without any bloodshed. That deeply effects our respective cultures.

:-) Thanks. I'm not just some pimply kid although regrettably I still get the occasional spot. I wish I had signed up for Slashdot just a bit earlier and hit that magic UID: 65536. Missed it by a few hundred. I'm in my early forties and been on Slashdot since the late 90's. My "Homepage" links to one of my businesses which is related to Agile training. Agile is one of those things that is compatible with my overall view of things: you can treat people like responsible adults and they will mostly rise to the occasion and behave that way! The ones that don't rise to the occasion may need remedial help or may be beyond help (in a given organization), but they will be relatively few and far between. As we like to say so often here on Slashdot about DRM: don't treat all your customers like criminals because that encourages people to behave like criminals. Instead, give them a reasonable option to do good and most people will take it!

Please mod parent up!!!

(and I wish that I had said it!!!)

My vacuous twaddle is just my own opinion. I may be wrong. I may have observed the wrong sample of reality to come up with my opinions. Sorry.

That said, my use of the word "soul" shouldn't be construed as some mystical mumbo-jumbo. I mean simply our seemingly unique human capacity to use reason to discover the nature of the universe... which capacity we frequently ignore as we become emotional about issues and circumstances. I'm not sure if you've read the book "The Black Swan" but it has a few great sections on common logical fallacies that are based in emotional mechanics of our brains. Very cool stuff. And yet we clearly are able to transcend that emotionality and move to rationality.

I just believe (again based on limited evidence) that most people choose moral relativism, capitalism, American culture etc. because it is emotionally easy, not because they have thought clearly and rationally about it.

I didn't use the word "noble" although I might have thought it :-) Actually, there is a mental perspective about our relationship with others that is implied by the word "victimized" that I'm not sure I agree with. Victimization is a perspective oriented in power relationships (you have a gun, I don't, => you have power over me and could potentially victimize me). Again, my point is not about a particular power dynamic, but instead about a cultural dynamic: that people who expect a thing of others often get that thing, and in America, an expectation of danger and distrust leads to those very things. It is inherent in so many parts of American life and culture that I can understand why it is hard to see if you are in the culture (and if you aren't, I'm surprised that you don't see it, but interested in what you _do_ see as the distinguishing features of American culture). For example, the fundamental structures of government with a "system of checks and balances" is founded on distrust... which is historically understandable given English colonialism. But that structure does not increase trust. Instead, it perpetuates distrust and, compared to what I have seen in other countries, that distrustful attitude is reflected throughout the culture at a higher level than in other cultures (particularly my native Canadian culture).

I probably wasn't clear enough... of _course_ you need life to have quality of life. But if we simply focus on the binary of life/not-life, we can miss building on that to get to quality of life. In Canada, to be specific, we also have the right to life, and liberty, but to security of the person (rather than property) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). As you can imagine, we take those rights seriously. However, the difference between a right to property and a right to security of the person has significant consequences in how as a society we treat those who are poor or needy. Security of the person is a quality of life right rather than an economic right.

I agree. This is a bit like Asimov's laws of robotics. It makes sense that a society should not allow harm to come to innocents (what about the guilty?) So why does the society in the USA allow this to happen so often? In the name of freedom (e.g. an attempt to be free from taxes, or freedom of choice in health care) there is great injustice perpetuated against great numbers of citizens in the USA. And it's not just a "falling through the cracks" type of problem where a very small number of people are affected. I was flabbergasted when I learned how many people there are not protected by health insurance or are under-insured. In Canada, it would be very difficult to get away with a private health system because it would be challenged as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: to security of person.

That's pretty cynical, and no, I'm not saying that "America is populated with people". In fact, I specifically said that as an outsider to that area I found _differences_ in how people behave that appeared to me to be based on a less idealistic moral standard and, not only that, with some good old philosophical/cultural hypocrisy thrown in... compared to other places I have lived/observed (e.g. the Canadian Prairies, the US East Coast, and Big Cities in China).

I have been attacked on the street, I did not protect myself, and the attack did not escalate to anyone's death.

Do I think poorly of those who have [protected themselves]? Not on the whole, but I can certainly imagine both situations where I would and would not think highly of the actions of those who protect themselves.

Actually, I don't believe _only_ in a right to life, liberty and property. I believe that those values are simply a reaction to some bad behaviour on the part of an empire that had grown complacent. They aren't bad values, but they aren't complete values and they _certainly_ shouldn't be primary values. Life is important. Quality of life is more important. Liberty is important. Responsibility is more important. Property is important. Enfranchisement is more important.

And, finally, I don't believe in "bad" people any more than I believe in "evil spirits". I think it is far to simplistic an attitude to think of anyone as "bad" or "good". Instead, I choose to give people my love and good faith, even when their actions don't seem to merit it. (BTW, I'm certainly not perfect at doing this and I do sometimes cut off my relationship with people that I think are harming me.)

The point of my original statement is, put another way, that if you act as if people are bad/dangerous/not-to-be-trusted, then they will be more likely to behave that way with you regardless of their behaviour with other people. If you have a whole culture that assumes people are bad/dangerous/not-to-be-trusted, then, in general, I believe/observe-anecdotally, that people will behave worse, more dangerously and in a less trustworthy way.

I'm also willing to be clear that this is just my opinion and based on my limited observation between four major cultures: Western Canadian, Bay Area, Eastern US and Large City Chinese. I'm not saying these things with any sort of scientific certainty nor even statistically significant certainty.

I moved there in 1997 to work for the Lighthouse Design division of Sun Microsystems (formerly the division did NeXT software). As a mid-size city kid from the Canadian prairies, I was immediately struck by, not just the moral bankruptcy, but what I felt was literally a soul-destroying culture. I left soon after and only returned a couple times, each time having that impression confirmed.

Here are some of the things I observed. Some are general to the United States and its form of capitalism, some (seem to be) specific to the Bay Area and Silicon Valley:

1. Culture of guns and violence. Simply a belief that enough other people are "bad" that you must protect yourself and it would be okay to kill someone else to do that. There are lots of places in the world where that belief is not pervasive and they seem to be nicer places to live. It's kinda like the justice system is supposed to work: it's fairer if you presume innocence and that actually encourages people to behave nicely whereas if you presume guilt, people will live up to that expectation.

2. Extreme Culture of Materialism. Money matters, and getting rich matters even more. The expression "F***-You Money" is a good indicator of this. I knew a few people who had their "F***-You Money" and they weren't enlightened... they were spoiled. It's like the "American Dream" taken to an unhealthy extreme. People were generally extremely busy and most friendly conversation was either about money, money other people make, technology, sex or drugs. Very little friendly conversation was about community, relationships, or the soul.

3. A Bizarre Hypocrisy around Tolerance/Inclusion. San Francisco, in particular, was bad for this; blind to its own racism yet so proud that it was inclusive and tolerant. If you know the area, I only need say "East Palo Alto" (it's been a few years so maybe it's gentrified now) and you should be able to figure out what I mean. We tolerate all religions, all philosophies, all genders, all types of cultures... except the black and spanish folks in our midst who only work menial or retail service jobs. The real problem is that most people there were completely blind to what was blindingly obvious to me as an outsider.

4. Pervasive, Persuasive Moral Bankruptcy. The longer I was there, the more I "got into" the culture. I've seen this happen to other friends from outside the area. It kills people's souls. Maybe not everyone... I'm sure there are some people who are shining examples of enlightenment... but I couldn't resist it, and I don't know anyone else who has (save one person). Of course, this is "normal" - we adjust to and eventually adopt the culture of our surroundings unless we actively work against it. I _was_ actively working against it and it still changed me to my own detriment.

I believe that the organizations that are there (Google, Facebook, etc.) are not "to blame" as they are just participating in the culture and trying to be successful in that culture. (Or to be more accurate, the people in those organizations are doing this.) But anyone who has an idealistic bone in them will quickly have it gellified and unconsciously begin to give up that idealism for the much more flexible moral relativism and then eventually the outlook that, heck, capitalism isn't so bad after all! not realizing that the ideology in that area is beyond capitalism: it's imperial corporatist capitalism that cares only for growth, and at any human cost (just so long as it doesn't harm the bottom line).

I just means that over a given distance (a megaparsec) if you measure that distance every second, it will seem to have grown larger (by 47.3 +/- 2.1 kilometers). In other words, expanding space means that distance itself is growing.

Now, being a cosmology noob myself, I still can't quite wrap my head around this idea: if we look at a much smaller scale, say one meter, what are we actually observing? In our own frame of reference, does this mean that if you removed a one meter ruler from the universe for a second and then brought it back it would be measured to be slightly less than one meter? Or does it mean that the fundamental fabric of the universe that reflects relationships and fundamental constants in physics are changing so that when you bring the meter ruler back into the universe it would "pop" out to the new length of a meter?

I know that it relates to red shift... gack.

I recently dropped a PS3 on my toe, broke the nail mostly off and broke the bone. Hurt like hell! I went to the hospital to have it looked at. The doctor gave me local freezing (which incidentally only affects pain receptors, not heat/cold receptors). He tore my nail the rest of the way off, dressed the wound. Then he gave me a prescription for pain killers. I asked him, "is the pain going to be any worse than what I originally felt when I dropped the PS3 on my foot?" He said it wouldn't be. I didn't fill the prescription.

(Wishing I had mod points for your post... I think it is incredibly insightful.)

I did some consulting work with a big mining company where drivers of 400 tonne trucks go for 12 hours shifts, safety is critical, and speed means dollars. One big problem they have is drivers falling asleep at the wheel. So what they had to do is make the roads NOT straight so that driving itself was interesting. There are no speed limits (that I know of) on the mine site because they want ore to be transported from shovels to processing hoppers as fast as possible.

That said, cell phone use is absolutely forbidden.

Keeping driving interesting is one of the most important ways to keep it safe. In my opinion, twisty roads and no speed limits are way better than banning cell phone use. If I'm on a twisty road, there's no way I'll use a cell phone. On the other hand, if I have hundreds of km of straight or gently curving highway, I _need_ something to keep me interested or else I'll fall asleep even if I'm not tired!!!

I wish I had mod points to mod you _way_ up!!! Agile requires significant changes in behaviour and is extremely hard to do properly... That said, the results even with that effort are truly worth it.