The Mathematical Error of Prevailing Selfishness

[HappySkeptic]

Also, if you've ever been involved in BCP (business continuity planning) or DR (disaster recovery) you'll have spotted the benefits (even criticality) of switching to a dictatorship model to ensure the survival of The Group over the individual.  

Welcome to the dystopia.

The group has value only because the individuals have value.  The apparatus of a government has value only its ability to provide a framework for individuals to survive and flourish.  Sometimes the existence of civilization and a good framework requires foundational myths, and the willingness of a population to mostly accept the will of the majority, but if bottom-up authority inverts to become dictatorship, or if the needs of the individuals become subsumed into the needs of the state, its time for some forced change.

Covid restrictions are an interesting use-case for this.  Does having to have a mask or vaccine constitute tyranny?  I don't think so.  It's simple self defense.  I don't want some fuckwit to kill me or my family by spreading a preventable disease.

[vulcanlogician]

The group has value only because the individuals have value. 

I agree with this. It's why I've always rejected the oversimplified Randian model of individualism vs. collectivism model.

"Collectivism" can he extremely valuable to large numbers of individuals, and it can even promote their own individualist enterprises... simply by trying to improve everybody's circumstances.

[DLJ]

...
The group has value only because the individuals have value. 
...

Tell that to the anteater.

Is there a difference between consumer-value and provider-value?

Are the two 'values' in your claim used in the same sense?
In what way are your ancestor-individuals of value? For their genes? For their contribution to the BoK?
Are someone else's ancestor-individuals of more or less value to you?

[Mister Agenda]

...
Sounds like you have an idea for a dystopian movie. 
...

Movie or real life.

Insert an -archy or an -ocracy instead of 'The Group' and see if it fits.

Examples:  British monarchy, rogue institutions like the CIA or the Catholic Church or any Corporation (which is what I had in mind as I wrote the above) or even a professional sportsball club.  

Also, if you've ever been involved in BCP (business continuity planning) or DR (disaster recovery) you'll have spotted the benefits (even criticality) of switching to a dictatorship model to ensure the survival of The Group over the individual.  

Welcome to the dystopia.

I've been involved in BCP and I did not get that impression. We may have been doing it wrong, but the plan is to keep the business running and prevent anyone from losing their job if something bad happens like our buildings getting flooded. And since the plan was developed by consensus and consultation, it doesn't feel like a dictatorship model at all. By planning contingencies in advance we avoid having a single person (who might not even be alive if the disaster was really bad) be responsible for all the shot-calling in emergencies. We all know what we're supposed to do in various scenarios and we're well-trained enough to step up and adapt to unexpected contingencies. The group ensures maximum survival of the individuals in the group...there isn't a group without the individuals who make it up.

[Angrboda]

Movie or real life.

Insert an -archy or an -ocracy instead of 'The Group' and see if it fits.

Examples:  British monarchy, rogue institutions like the CIA or the Catholic Church or any Corporation (which is what I had in mind as I wrote the above) or even a professional sportsball club.  

Also, if you've ever been involved in BCP (business continuity planning) or DR (disaster recovery) you'll have spotted the benefits (even criticality) of switching to a dictatorship model to ensure the survival of The Group over the individual.  

Welcome to the dystopia.

I've been involved in BCP and I did not get that impression. We may have been doing it wrong, but the plan is to keep the business running and prevent anyone from losing their job if something bad happens like our buildings getting flooded. And since the plan was developed by consensus and consultation, it doesn't feel like a dictatorship model at all. By planning contingencies in advance we avoid having a single person (who might not even be alive if the disaster was really bad) be responsible for all the shot-calling in emergencies. We all know what we're supposed to do in various scenarios and we're well-trained enough to step up and adapt to unexpected contingencies. The group ensures maximum survival of the individuals in the group...there isn't a group without the individuals who make it up.

He may be referring to a situation in which survival of the group is threatened, a crisis of some sort. It may be beneficial in such situations to adopt leadership models that one wouldn't ordinarily adopt.

[DLJ]

Movie or real life.

Insert an -archy or an -ocracy instead of 'The Group' and see if it fits.

Examples:  British monarchy, rogue institutions like the CIA or the Catholic Church or any Corporation (which is what I had in mind as I wrote the above) or even a professional sportsball club.  

Also, if you've ever been involved in BCP (business continuity planning) or DR (disaster recovery) you'll have spotted the benefits (even criticality) of switching to a dictatorship model to ensure the survival of The Group over the individual.  

Welcome to the dystopia.

I've been involved in BCP and I did not get that impression. We may have been doing it wrong, but the plan is to keep the business running and prevent anyone from losing their job if something bad happens like our buildings getting flooded. And since the plan was developed by consensus and consultation, it doesn't feel like a dictatorship model at all. By planning contingencies in advance we avoid having a single person (who might not even be alive if the disaster was really bad) be responsible for all the shot-calling in emergencies. We all know what we're supposed to do in various scenarios and we're well-trained enough to step up and adapt to unexpected contingencies. The group ensures maximum survival of the individuals in the group...there isn't a group without the individuals who make it up.

Sounds like you're doing it right.  

So we need a word for 'orderly controlled compliance developed by consensus and consultation'... maybe 'democracy'?  All good.  And that is BCP.

In the actual DR situation there is none of that going on until after 'back-to-normal'.  As the Romans did before us, with their Caesar who steps up and directs the pre-agreed shots, we have a triangular structure: A small number of decision-makers, the larger coordination team and the largest recovery/salvage team(s).... military style.  When the war is over... etc.  

As an aside:  Hence a perpetual war is very lucrative for the MIC.  Anyone spotted the new Oceania branded as AUKUS?  Bravo Orwell.

Anyway, yes, The Group = The Business.  The plan is for survival of The Group.
I used to ask people in my classes if they'd prepared for the next epidemic (I wasn't prescient enough to predict a pandemic) and also asked whether the business (e.g. banks) could survive if all the people were lost.  Yes, they can, as long as the data is there.

He may be referring to a situation in which survival of the group is threatened, a crisis of some sort.  It may be beneficial in such situations to adopt leadership models that one wouldn't ordinarily adopt.

Indeed.  He may.  And it would.

[vulcanlogician]

He may be referring to a situation in which survival of the group is threatened, a crisis of some sort.  It may be beneficial in such situations to adopt leadership models that one wouldn't ordinarily adopt.

I just listened to a lecture wherein the speaker said that shepherding cultures develop an "honor morality." They do this because such a moral system is useful to have when you live in remote areas and need to defend your livestock from theft yourself. (There is no help from "authorities" as in a city.) Of course, other cultures in analogous predicaments may do the same. The lecturer cites American inner cities.

The thing is, once an honor culture develops, it tends to remain for dozens of generations, even when the initial conditions that prompted the honor culture to emerge are gone. For instance, whites in the American South. White Southerners were chiefly Scotch-Irish shepherds who brought an honor culture overseas with them. It still persists to this day.

I think this is relevant when one considers the utility in adopting a certain leader or power system due to current circumstances. Such decisions may remain for generations, even after the need for such a leader/power system is long gone.

---

---