[FRIAM] Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate

[Robert J. Cordingley]

I agree with glen about the need for some explanation.

It's possible I would put my own spin on what is right or wrong with 
current reward systems based on my own prejudices.  (I focus reward here 
purely on the financial.) Recently we saw horror at bailout funds used 
for bonuses and the resulting crucifiction of the target's 
employment/payment contracts - a secondary horror.  Different 
political/social systems have different reward systems and safety-net 
systems.  It's in the latter that I'd like to see some discussion.

The current system attempts to reward productivity while reigning in 
excesses, with varying degrees of success in enforcement.  Moral and 
legal judgments put boundaries on most of us to conform to the local 
perceptions.  Some get rewarded for unethical but legal activities 
(selling credit default swaps).  Some get rewarded for illegal but 
perhaps ethical activities (selling medical marijuana) and some get 
rewarded for illegal and unethical activities (robbing banks).  On the 
other hand some don't get rewarded for legal and ethical activities 
(volunteerism). 

I don't think anyone gets rewarded for what they know.  They only get 
rewarded when that knowledge is used in some _process_ when it is 
activated and acted on. It is labor that is rewarded. When the process 
is valued by society then it or it's members are willing to pay for it.  
Society or some subset ultimately sets the value.

Perhaps this is obvious?

Robert C.

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Emitted by Ann Racuya-Robbins circa 01/04/09 12:58 PM:
>   
>>   I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at Friam,
>> the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a
>> fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference of
>> opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that is
>> emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when
>> people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most equitable
>> way for people to share what they know? What does it mean for something
>> to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference. I have spent
>> decades thinking about these things but no one knows everything and I am
>> sure I have more to learn.
>>     
>
> This is a bit cryptic.  I presume the particulars of any disagreements
> have come to light in face-to-face conversations?  How and when you do
> _you_ think people should be rewarded for what they know?  How and when
> does your opposition think people should be rewarded for what they know?
>  What do you think it means for something to be "free"?  And what does
> the opposition think?
>
> Personally, I believe people _should_ do almost precisely what they
> already do.  I.e. there are wide distributions for how and when people
> get rewarded for what they know and that's how it "should" be.  From
> your using "should" in your question, I infer you think that (at least
> some) people are NOT rewarded in the way or at the time they _should_ be
> rewarded.
>
> Likewise, I tend to think that nothing is ever free.  "Free" is a
> delusion we willingly engage in so as to "externalize costs and
> internalize profits".  For example, "free software" is free in neither
> sense of the word (free beer or positive freedoms).  Like proprietary
> software, the costs and benefits exist, they are just in different
> places and require attention at different times.
>
> If the above discussion is irrelevant to what you intended, then please
> elaborate and clarify!
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20090401/c4500d80/attachment.html>