Re: Wearing your conscience.

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.usa)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:23:38 -0500

royls@telus.net wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:33:55 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
>
>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:18:43 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>>> <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
>>>
>>>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:39:38 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>>>>> <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:24:44 GMT, Peter Lawrence
>>>>>>> <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At one level all change is for the worse, because of transition
>>>>>>>> costs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is Peter's mantra: the status quo has no costs, only
>>>>>>> transitions have any costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. That is a fact of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. Transitions are what have made the difference in
>>>>> quality of life between us and cavemen.
>>>>
>>>> And people have PAID the cost of transition.
>>>
>>> ?? Like living to adulthood...?
>>
>> No. Like moving elsewhere when the farm blows away. Like building
>> irrigation to make deserts bloom. Like rebuilding a little farther
>> away from the flood plain. They end up with what they started but it
>> COST to do it.
>
> Translation: there is no divine right to keep what you like while
> changing what you don't like. Waaaaahhhh!

An red herring is NOT a translation. The fact is that CHANGE COSTS. Get a
clue or get lost.

>
>>>> The idea that change has no
>>>> costs is stupid.
>>>
>>> But not as stupid as the idea that only change has a cost, that, in
>>> Peter's words, "all change is for the worse."
>>
>> But it is. There is ALWAYS a cost of adaptation.
>
> But not always a _net_ cost.

Yes. It is. The *COST OF CHANGE* is alwasy positive. You can do all the
creative accounting you want but you will not eliminate the fact that there
is a price to pay for the change, and in most case, such as adaptation to
climate change, there is no 'upside' after the bills.

>
>> Large or small it is a rule
>> of entropy that creating order takes energy. And energy is money.
>
> Wrong.

Sorry. I must have gone over your head. I am not used to talkiing to the
mentally challenged.

>
>> Apply that
>> to the organised energy that is civilisation.
>
> Mumbo-jumbo.

No. A philosphical statement. Civilisation has been described and organised
energy, since it only lasts as long as we can harness power. After the oil
is gone and the fuckwits have done nothing to develop alternatives, the lack
of power will ensure a return to the tribal state where people can only
organise the power of muscles.

>
>>>>>> The status quo will have a fairly set cost, both
>>>>>> before and after, but any change will usually reasult in an
>>>>>> ADDITIONAL cost to pay for the change.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that ignores the possibility that the change may be for the
>>>>> better, and in return for a modest transition cost, will eliminate
>>>>> or reduce the _recurring_ set cost of the status quo.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Uh, yes, actually.
>>
>> Uh.. No. Really.
>
> Really, really yes.

Uh, No. Really.

>
>> The cost of change is the one under discussion and that is
>> ALWAYS POSITIVE. You cannot blow off the cost of change by
>> theorising about future profits.
>
> But you can blow off future profits by theorizing about costs of
> change, is that it?

The hypoethetical future profits are no more meaningful to the cost of
change than the past profits. CHANGE COSTS. Get a clue fuckwit.

<Endless Repetetition of Mindless and Stupid assertions deleted. >

Quantcast