h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On the subject of propaganda, there was an interesting comment made by former Secretary of State Eagleberger on a tv interview last night. The conversation concered the amount of criticism of the war progress and the administration that is being generated by the print media, much of it groundless. Eagleberger had a ready anecdote to explain it.

"The New York Times asked me to write an op-ed (opinion/editorial) piece for them. They said, 'Basically, what we want is criticism of the administration.' Needless to say, they didn't get the piece."

Let's hear it for yellow journalism, alive and well, and not just in the Weekly World News.

There's no such thing as too much criticism.

It is a feature of decentralized systems, those involving human behaviour anyway, that they work when the humans involved bother to think and participate responsibly. I'm not even talking about taking responsibility for anything other than their own well being. If people are basically selfish, and smart about it, then capitalism and democracy are wonderful systems, channelling everyone's selfish energy into progress for the whole.

Unfortunately, laziness is a stronger force than self-interest. People aren't even properly selfish, because they can't be bothered. Why should I research which candidate has my best interests in mind, or where I want to spend my dollars, when I could watch American Idol instead?

Make an idiot-proof system, and they'll make better idiots. (Sheesh, I'm sounding like Blatherskite now. Does living in California make one cynical? Or is it just living?)

Anyway, the relevance of this little rant is this: I've just been struck by the idea that the marketplace of ideas, freedom of speech and of the press, the meme pool... is another domain which is basically decentralized, and which therefore depends for its efficient functioning on people bothering to care. What's the good in having so many alternative sources of information when the average reader is much more compelled by the Weekly World News (or The Sun, isn't that England's nasty tabloid?) than by World Press Review?

Among a group of interested, curious, motivated people, who actually give a damn what the truth is, a system of unrestricted flow of all kinds of information is wonderful. Through the sifting action of each intelligent agent, the truth rises (or truths rise - I'm not making any claims about the nature of truth here) to the top. When most of the agents involved aren't intelligent, but lazy assholes instead, it's something else that rises to the top. The most easily digested version? The version that sells the most papers? The version using the fewest polysyllabic words?

Ah, I stand by my earlier contention. The best thing for one to do is to tend one's own garden. Be an informed voter, consumer, and thinker, and don't worry that most people aren't. Be an example for others to follow, and you've done right. If they follow or not, it's their own lookout.

IMHO, of course....

Seems sensible enough.

It's well documented that sunshine, strong winds, ozone, and gridlock form a deadly recipe for idealism. Welcome to California.

Some insight into caution, risk and the fruits of technology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,12981,928170,00.html "Acclaimed author Matt Ridley on why it's high time we cheered up about the new technologies." I admit I still identify with the cautious European described, but it's made me think....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Small surprise, count me among the "Pollyanna" American camp. I've never been able to understand the extremists resisting genetically modified crops myself... here's a plant that will grow in adverse conditions and help people feed themselves in a poor nation... why are you trying to eliminate it?

I've given up worrying about closed minded people. It's too dull. I just avoid them.

Well I do see your point, and to a certain extent it is the media who tend to blow everything out of all proportion. However, he fear with genetic mods is that what happens if one GM plant cross polinates with a weed then the weed will take on the same or similar characteristics as the plant.

Well, then you have to fight weeds. That's not usually a problem you have in places where nothing will grow, but given the choice between a weed problem and starvation, I'm ready to pull weeds. Did it when I didn't face starvation, after all...

Nice article

I suppose that raises the question of who actually controls the media

Thanks for sharing that article P-C, good stuff. I just watched an Eddie Izzard video where he goes on about how in the UK there's a feeling of "why?", where in America there's a feeling of "Why not?". It seems to be true. I find this particularly frustrating when it comes down to GM crops. I used to work at a plant genomics institute I remember seeing one GM plant someone was in the early stages of research on. It was extremely drought resistant, when the control plant was starting to wither when denied water, and even when it was a brown shrivelled lump, the GM plant was still going strong, fully green and healthy. It's this technology that could make a real difference to millions/billions of people! It's exciting!

Ste

Aren't there enough examples of flora and fauna introduced from other environments that've screwed up the local ecology for a bit of caution regarding (in this example) GM plants? It's too late afterward to say "Oh I never thought *that* would happen! " Vive Old Europe!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

There's caution, and then there is caution.
The fact that introducing new flora and fauna has screwed up eco-systems befor is grounds for caution.
The fact that trans-genic plants could transfer herbicide resistance to neighbouring weeds is grounds for caution.
The fact that big corporations manipulate the genes of plants, not for the 'good of mankind', but for increased profit, should make people think twice before praising it as a benefit for developing countries. Strains of food grains that don't give viable seed grain is a catastrophy for poor farmers, and plants that are resistant against _one_ particular type of herbicide makes them vulnerable when the makers turn up the price.

_However_ avoiding food because it's got 'genes' is foolish, and twice so when you're running a hunger-stricken African country.

I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion which seems to be quite intresting but I asked to join and obviously picked the wrong thread - darn! - and so GTB told me to get over here and... ...here I am. A bit out of breath since my shape isn't all that good but yes...

Oh, and he told me to pick my chair's name. Let me think....How about chair of the inherent inability to believe - because I am, inable to believe. Not that I want to, thank you very much, but even if I did want to... I guess, you get my point?

Methos

Welcome Methos the Unbeliever!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You're on the roster Methos, Chair of the Inherent Inability to Believe. Welcome!

Now, let the official flan-throwing commenc.... Oh, MaW's already begun.

Welcome, fellow unbeliever!