surreptitious57 wrote:So you would be happy to let your bin man perform brain surgery on you then

How does that follow from what KIR wrote?

I once watched a video reenactment of two gnats fighting over who should have the last piece of a dead tardigrade. That was pretty interesting. You know how difficult it is to off a tardigrade.

More to the point, if humans went extinct and left the planet to the gnats and tardigrades, there'd be a whole lot less very pointless hand-wringing by amateur economists about how to create a sustainable economy. On the whole, I think this would be a positive outcome of human extinction.

Evolution doesn't tell a story of progress. There's a wall of low complexity at one end, so everything that comes after that starts to look pretty complex.

Nature: red in tooth and claw. But hoomans is speshul. tey haz duh sawus. it is speshul.

Cito di Pense wrote:Nature: red in tooth and claw. But hoomans is speshul. tey haz duh sawus. it is speshul.

The difference between humans and all other life forms is not the red in tooth and claw bit. Notwithstanding the fact that something like 99.9% of all species have become extinct due to largely outside factors, the latter always finish up with a more or less balanced ecological system, albeit consisting of a different set of species. We, on the other hand, are in the process of destroying it all by our own little selves.

Keep It Real wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:More to the point, if humans went extinct and left the planet to the gnats and tardigrades, there'd be a whole lot less very pointless hand-wringing by amateur economists about how to create a sustainable economy. On the whole, I think this would be a positive outcome of human extinction.

I'm actually a relatively well-qualified economist Cito - but disregard and disparage me as being an amateur if you like.

We've been through this before, KIR. Why aren't you employed by some economic think-tank? The problem isn't your personality. Economic think tanks are populated with folks who talk out of their arses. You're an amateur simply because you're not a professional. I'm noting how much you're weaseling with relatively well-qualified. I'm a well-qualified astrophysicist, relative to you, and that is something that could be tested, as opposed to testing your qualifications as an economist. What you demonstrably have is a vocabulary of economic buzzwords. The rest is up to you to demonstrate.

Hermit wrote:We, on the other hand, are in the process of destroying it all by our own little selves.

This is not really a very strong point, because of the feedback between biological activity and the environment. Use of the term 'destroying' is arrogant and ignorant. What you denote is 'destroying the habitat that sustains us'. Something else will surely survive, even if it is only extremophile bacteria around undersea volcanic vents. If you think there is something special about living systems, there isn't. These systems are self-replicating and subject to selection effects, and that's about it, unless you subscribe to the woo of vitalism. Your pointed remarks about "our own little selves" is packed with the moral judgement of 'responsibility', and I'll unpack it further for you if the need arises.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:We, on the other hand, are in the process of destroying it all by our own little selves.

This is not really a very strong point, because of the feedback between biological activity and the environment. Use of the term 'destroying' is arrogant and ignorant. What you denote is 'destroying the habitat that sustains us'. Something else will surely survive, even if it is only extremophile bacteria around undersea volcanic vents. If you think there is something special about living systems, there isn't. These systems are self-replicating and subject to selection effects, and that's about it, unless you subscribe to the woo of vitalism. Your pointed remarks about "our own little selves" is packed with the moral judgement of 'responsibility', and I'll unpack it further for you if the need arises.

You snipped the difference, so here's the post again, with some bits in bold to aid your comprehension:

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Nature: red in tooth and claw. But hoomans is speshul. tey haz duh sawus. it is speshul.

The difference between humans and all other life forms is not the red in tooth and claw bit. Notwithstanding the fact that something like 99.9% of all species have become extinct due to largely outside factors, the latter always finish up with a more or less balanced ecological system, albeit consisting of a different set of species. We, on the other hand, are in the process of destroying it all by our own little selves.

Note where I agree with you. Can't find it? Here it is: "The difference between humans and all other life forms is not the red in tooth and claw bit."

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:We, on the other hand, are in the process of destroying it all by our own little selves.

This is not really a very strong point, because of the feedback between biological activity and the environment. Use of the term 'destroying' is arrogant and ignorant. What you denote is 'destroying the habitat that sustains us'. Something else will surely survive, even if it is only extremophile bacteria around undersea volcanic vents. If you think there is something special about living systems, there isn't. These systems are self-replicating and subject to selection effects, and that's about it, unless you subscribe to the woo of vitalism. Your pointed remarks about "our own little selves" is packed with the moral judgement of 'responsibility', and I'll unpack it further for you if the need arises.

You snipped the difference, so here's the post again, with some bits in bold to aid your comprehension:

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Nature: red in tooth and claw. But hoomans is speshul. tey haz duh sawus. it is speshul.

The difference between humans and all other life forms is not the red in tooth and claw bit. Notwithstanding the fact that something like 99.9% of all species have become extinct due to largely outside factors, the latter always finish up with a more or less balanced ecological system, albeit consisting of a different set of species. We, on the other hand, are in the process of destroying it all by our own little selves.

Note where I agree with you. Can't find it? Here it is: "The difference between humans and all other life forms is not the red in tooth and claw bit."

It's the difference between simply providing a description, and providing a description with editorial comments. If you understand the historical record of mass extinctions, you'll have access to exactly how long it can take to restore 'balance'.

Keep It Real wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Do you think that brain surgeons and bin men should be earning more or less the same salary and if you do why

Yes, because I do not think brain surgeons are fundamentally massively superior to bin men. Years of training required to become competent as a brain surgeon should probably result in a significantly higher salary, in order to reward commitment. Not so much as even double a binman's salary, however. 18 year old binmen and 1st year med students? They should be on roughly the same money IMO.

And what do you do when all your doctors go abroad where they can get paid several times more?

No, not literally all of them. Just far, far more than you can afford to do so.

Unfortunately there are lots of people who disagree with your assessment of "fair", which is probably why there is no pool of patriotic citizens with the requisite skills who can step in, and there are no robots which can do a doctor's job. At present, in reality, Britain isn't producing enough doctors even with the current incentive structure. I think the speed with which you resort to threats of punishment is probably symptomatic of exactly why this idea of enforced equality of outcome fails in practice.

For the record, a typical doctor is not paid a six figure salary in the UK.

There's also the secondary problem of what happens to economies that do not even strive to allocate resources efficiently, in accordance with the value they present to society.

Keep It Real wrote:
In what way can your qualifications be tested for that mine cannot?

Astrophysics actually knows something. For more detail, ask yourself whether you'd rather burn the Mona Lisa than a dog. Or ask yourself why the housing market is or is not dead. That's value, in a nutshell.

Thommo wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Do you think that brain surgeons and bin men should be earning more or less the same salary and if you do why

Yes, because I do not think brain surgeons are fundamentally massively superior to bin men. Years of training required to become competent as a brain surgeon should probably result in a significantly higher salary, in order to reward commitment. Not so much as even double a binman's salary, however. 18 year old binmen and 1st year med students? They should be on roughly the same money IMO.

And what do you do when all your doctors go abroad where they can get paid several times more?

Repeal the "социализм в одной стране" policy.

Keep It Real wrote:

Thommo wrote:No, not literally all of them. Just far, far more than you can afford to do so.

You know this because...what...doctors are well known to usually be primarily motivated by financial greed?

Greed implies it's excessive. It isn't. Yes, lots of people travel to work in countries where they get paid more. In fact, without these people the NHS would not have enough doctors, as large numbers of recruits already come for exactly this reason.

Huge numbers of people move for work every year, including to other countries. Just look at British immigration and emigration figures - it's hundreds of thousands a year.

Keep It Real wrote:

Thommo wrote:At present, in reality, Britain isn't producing enough doctors even with the current incentive structure.

Cuba doesn't have that problem.

It does.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/08/cub ... eager-pay/

And that ignores the restrictions on freedom of movement that have historically existed as well.

Keep It Real wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think the speed with which you resort to threats of punishment is probably symptomatic of exactly why this idea of enforced equality of outcome fails in practice.

Most people seem to be in favour of a more equal society incentive/disincentive/punishment - 3 sides of the same coin, it's wrong to shy away from the word punishment completely although it is an emotive word. Hasn't been tried yet so how can it have failed?

Apart from communist countries which existed for large parts of the 20th century, where it was tried.

But you mistake "more equal" for "equal outcomes". You can have greater equality of opportunity without having equality of pay. You can have "more equal" pay without having "equal pay". You could have doctors being paid 4 times a binman's salary instead of 5 times, without getting anywhere near what you're suggesting. Whether that would actually work is a tangential question to what "most people seem to be in favour of", which is what gets called an appeal to popularity. Essentially those people (if indeed they do generally agree with you, which I suspect would not be the case) could be wrong.

And withdrawing people's citizenship for not agreeing with your economic model absolutely is a punishment, quite a serious one.

Keep It Real wrote:

Thommo wrote:For the record, a typical doctor is not paid a six figure salary in the UK.

Yeh, I know, and if they were paid 1.5 times as much as a bin man they'd be on 47kpa.

I don't think binmen make that much actually.

Keep It Real wrote:

Thommo wrote:There's also the secondary problem of what happens to economies that do not even strive to allocate resources efficiently, in accordance with the value they present to society.

They wouldn't be full of chuggers, PPI and doubleglazing cold callers etc ad infinitum. Newsflash - many desires are not rational or advisable. Market failures 101.

Be that as it may, central planning has failed far worse, far more often, wherever it has been applied.