Social limits to growth

Richard Puchalsky wrote:

 > I. "Physical scarcity (natural landscape, Old Masters)"
 >
 > If what you want is undisturbed use of an acre of natural landscape
 > for recreation, then you want something that not everyone can have,
 > even if everyone is vastly and equally rich.
 >
 > ...[deletia]...
 >
 > I. Direct
 >
 > Perhaps the limitations on copying and on human lifespan in the
 > Culture are designed to create a situation in which the number of
 > humans is kept low in relation to the amount of discovered natural
 > space. For created entities, the Culture can make perfect copies of
 > anything.

(a) The Culture can *create* enormous amounts of land. Space is huge,
and there's amazing amounts of matter. Any person with roughly
human-size needs for natural terrain would not have trouble finding
room enough to run around.

(b) Someone with really outrageous requirements (say, wanting an entire
galaxy) could always get it in VR, although this is a copout.

(c) For those rare individuals who do not find the space adequate and do
not consider VR an acceptable substitute---well, tough. Nobody ever
said everyone in the Culture was happy, just that the vast majority are
happy enough most of the time.

~k

--
xGCU Vaguely Unsettling Aftertaste
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"~k.lee" wrote in message

 > Richard Puchalsky wrote:
 >
  > > I. "Physical scarcity (natural landscape, Old Masters)"
  > >
  > > If what you want is undisturbed use of an acre of natural landscape
  > > for recreation, then you want something that not everyone can have,
  > > even if everyone is vastly and equally rich.
  > >
  > > ...[deletia]...
  > >
  > > I. Direct
  > >
  > > Perhaps the limitations on copying and on human lifespan in the
  > > Culture are designed to create a situation in which the number of
  > > humans is kept low in relation to the amount of discovered natural
  > > space. For created entities, the Culture can make perfect copies of
  > > anything.
 >
 > (a) The Culture can *create* enormous amounts of land. Space is huge,
 > and there's amazing amounts of matter. Any person with roughly
 > human-size needs for natural terrain would not have trouble finding
 > room enough to run around.
 >
 > (b) Someone with really outrageous requirements (say, wanting an entire
 > galaxy) could always get it in VR, although this is a copout.
 >
 > (c) For those rare individuals who do not find the space adequate and do
 > not consider VR an acceptable substitute---well, tough. Nobody ever
 > said everyone in the Culture was happy, just that the vast majority are
 > happy enough most of the time.

I guess that if you want natural land that just looks fairly natural, as
opposed to being actually natural, then a Plate would be good enough. I
agree that direct physical scarcity would be rare or nonexistent in the
Culture as depicted. Social scarcity is more interesting because it's
conceivable that an almost infinitely rich and egalitarian society like the
Culture still couldn't provide some things to everyone.

_Social limits to growth_ includes the idea of social congestion. For
instance, assume that an advanced education is used primarily as a ticket in
order to get a good job rather than for its intrinsic value. Any individual
who wants a better job might think that getting an education would be a good
way to do it. But if everyone looking to move up in this way makes the same
individual decision, none of them will be better off. Assuming that the
society can only support a certain percentage of good jobs, then if the pool
of job seekers became more educated, all that would happen is that even more
education would be required to get a good job (again, assuming that
education is primarily used as a way of differentiating job seekers). If
one person in a crowd stands on their toes, they can see better, but if the
whole crowd does, then no one can see better -- although those individuals
who refuse to will see less than they did before.

I can imagine something like this happening with the Culture, in Contact for
example. Banks writes that there are examinations you have to pass to get
into Contact, so presumably people study for them. If there were limits on
the absolute number of CGUs built relative to the human population, or if a
higher percentage of humans wanted to be in Contact than the percentage of
living space on GCUs and other Contact platforms, then I could see the tests
getting tougher and tougher as Contact tried to find some fair way of
choosing people from a highly intelligent and educated population.

But Banks also implies that most people in the Culture don't study -- it's
not hedonistic enough -- so perhaps that would prevent this kind of spiral.

There are many types of post-economic problems that Banks solves by simply
shifting them to the Minds and positing that Minds don't mind doing things
that people wouldn't want to do. The Minds are left with the social
competition for leadership that the humans have escaped (because humans
can't really be in leadership positions). The thrill of being a leader is
something that not all Minds can have, since the whole concept of leaders
involves not everyone being a leader. It's clear from _Excession_ that
some Minds really do have advisory control over others, especially during
wartime.
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"Richard Puchalsky" wrote in message ...

<snip>

 >
 > _Social limits to growth_ includes the idea of social congestion. For
 > instance, assume that an advanced education is used primarily as a ticket in
 > order to get a good job rather than for its intrinsic value. Any individual
 > who wants a better job might think that getting an education would be a good
 > way to do it. But if everyone looking to move up in this way makes the same
 > individual decision, none of them will be better off. Assuming that the
 > society can only support a certain percentage of good jobs, then if the pool
 > of job seekers became more educated, all that would happen is that even more
 > education would be required to get a good job (again, assuming that
 > education is primarily used as a way of differentiating job seekers). If
 > one person in a crowd stands on their toes, they can see better, but if the
 > whole crowd does, then no one can see better -- although those individuals
 > who refuse to will see less than they did before.
 >
 > I can imagine something like this happening with the Culture, in Contact for
 > example. Banks writes that there are examinations you have to pass to get
 > into Contact, so presumably people study for them.

I've always imagined that examinations were probably more
psychological rather than academic. The Culture's technology can
imbue the average citizen with both superhuman intelligence and a
perfect memory, so there's no really need to test for it.

Study, as opposed to research, appears to be fairly irrelevant (above
a minimum standard) in determining the capability of any individual,
i.e. if you've proven the ability to learn the basics, it shouldn't be
much of a task to apply this to any area of knowledge (arguably this
is the way things should work in our society). The fact that most
Culture citizens chose not to take advantage of this ability doesn't
mean it does not exist.

When Sma recruits both Zakalwe and the legless guy at the end, neither
has the skills the Culture is looking for initially. They were
looking for the right psychology. I think something similar is
practiced by Contact proper.

 > If there were limits on
 > the absolute number of CGUs built relative to the human population, or if a
 > higher percentage of humans wanted to be in Contact than the percentage of
 > living space on GCUs and other Contact platforms, then I could see the tests
 > getting tougher and tougher as Contact tried to find some fair way of
 > choosing people from a highly intelligent and educated population.

I doubt that there is a concrete limit to the number of GCUs.
Remember also that not all members of Contact are swanning around the
universe in GCUs. Many, if not most, will be based on GSVs, either
for training, awaiting assignment (or construction of their GCU), or
they may be assigned there indefinitely. There is, I think, no real
shortage of room on GSVs.

 > But Banks also implies that most people in the Culture don't study -- it's
 > not hedonistic enough -- so perhaps that would prevent this kind of spiral.

We've met a number of characters that would be classed as academics,
or at least academically minded. There was an expert in alien
civilisations (I think, I don't have a copy to hand) who was cleaning
Zakalwe's table. Then, of course, there are the vast numbers in PoG,
including Gurgeh himself. There are probably others sprinkled around
the books. Not everyone is living a purely hedonistic lifestyle.
Indeed, Banks states, in A Few Notes on the Culture, that education
never ends in the Culture, although of late Banks does seem intent on
portraying the Culture's citizens as vapid imbeciles.

 > There are many types of post-economic problems that Banks solves by simply
 > shifting them to the Minds and positing that Minds don't mind doing things
 > that people wouldn't want to do.

Don't these jobs go to non-sentient AI machines rather than Minds?

 > The Minds are left with the social
 > competition for leadership that the humans have escaped (because humans
 > can't really be in leadership positions). The thrill of being a leader is
 > something that not all Minds can have, since the whole concept of leaders
 > involves not everyone being a leader. It's clear from _Excession_ that
 > some Minds really do have advisory control over others, especially during
 > wartime.

The power structure of the Culture, such as it is, is hugely devolved.
As with everything in the Culture's 'hierarchy', it's based upon
respect of the expertise and experience of the coordinator or
coordinating group (a meritocracy if you will), and they only have to
follow those instructions as long as they agree with them (retaining
the Culture's form of anarchism). Of course during war the attitudes
change slightly, but the rules do not. I don't have Excession to
hand, so I can't remember the names, but the two anti-conspiracy
(Serious Callers Only is one I think) Minds request a warship from an
old Rock to take Ulver(?) to intercept the Culture's Affront
ambassador (Byr Genar-Hofoen?). When the war starts the warship, if I
remember correctly, feels duty bound to make its presence known to the
Steely Glint. I don't remember it being forced to do so under
penalty. It could well have kept quiet and was requested to do so.
The Steely Glint also appears to not have asked what a fully tooled up
warship, supposedly demilitarised and in storage, was doing in the
immediate volume. Later on, when the tricked Culture ships want to
surrender, they basically tell the Affront commander that, to
paraphrase: "We don't take orders, we take requests, and we've decided
to surrender."

Anyway, on the topic, the problem with this sort of analysis is the
lack of reliable data. We really don't know whether we are improving
as a society or not, although arguably we were probably quite communal
before modern times. As Banks himself states in aFNotC, it appears
improbable (based on our history) that a humanoid species could exist
that exhibited "no real greed, paranoia, stupidity, fanaticism or
bigotry..." And that is the largest Achilles heel of any society such
as the Culture: it only takes a small minority to display some of
these traits to bring it all crashing down on their heads. What would
happen to the Culture if a few billion humans or a few Minds decided
to display some of the above? Could the Culture cope with a section
of its population irrationally turning (for whatever reason) against
another section? Perhaps in it's mature form, but things get ropey in
the embryonic stages. That maybe why the Culture's formation "was not
without vicissitudes".

If it is possible, through education or otherwise, to eradicate the
negative facets of human behaviour, then the idea of ‘social
congestion' being an absolute barrier to growth is untenable.
However, if even a hint remains, there could well be trouble within
paradise.

Cheers
Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"David Pirie" wrote in message


...
 >
 > <snip>
  > > I can imagine something like this happening with the Culture, in Contact
for
  > > example. Banks writes that there are examinations you have to pass to
get
  > > into Contact, so presumably people study for them.
 >
 > I've always imagined that examinations were probably more
 > psychological rather than academic. The Culture's technology can
 > imbue the average citizen with both superhuman intelligence and a
 > perfect memory, so there's no really need to test for it.

It's mentioned in _Player of Games_ that while SC recruits, Contact waits
for you apply. You're right that at least some of the testing is
psychological; in _State of the Art_ Sma mentions that people with certain
sorts of bad reactions are supposed to be screened out of Contact. But from
one of the books I got the perhaps mistaken impression that Contact tested
applicants for knowledge as well. I figured that maybe it's really a sort
of psychological test in disguise; seeing whether they have the ability to
drive themselves to pick up a specialized set of knowledge might be a proxy
for seeing how much they really want to be in Contact, and whether they will
be self-disciplined enough when they get there. Sort of like the tests of
familiarity with the composer's work that the Mind in _Look to Windward_
uses to see who gets a ticket to the concert.

[...]
 > I doubt that there is a concrete limit to the number of GCUs.
 > Remember also that not all members of Contact are swanning around the
 > universe in GCUs. Many, if not most, will be based on GSVs, either
 > for training, awaiting assignment (or construction of their GCU), or
 > they may be assigned there indefinitely. There is, I think, no real
 > shortage of room on GSVs.

There must be some limit to how many people could comfortably live on them.
But I agree that presumably if a higher percentage of people in the Culture
decided that they wanted to be in Contact, they could just build more GSVs.

 >
  > > But Banks also implies that most people in the Culture don't study --
it's
  > > not hedonistic enough -- so perhaps that would prevent this kind of
spiral.
 >
 > We've met a number of characters that would be classed as academics,
 > or at least academically minded. There was an expert in alien
 > civilisations (I think, I don't have a copy to hand) who was cleaning
 > Zakalwe's table. Then, of course, there are the vast numbers in PoG,
 > including Gurgeh himself. There are probably others sprinkled around
 > the books. Not everyone is living a purely hedonistic lifestyle.
 > Indeed, Banks states, in A Few Notes on the Culture, that education
 > never ends in the Culture, although of late Banks does seem intent on
 > portraying the Culture's citizens as vapid imbeciles.
 >
  > > There are many types of post-economic problems that Banks solves by
simply
  > > shifting them to the Minds and positing that Minds don't mind doing
things
  > > that people wouldn't want to do.
 >
 > Don't these jobs go to non-sentient AI machines rather than Minds?

The Minds are often shown doing what amounts to scut work -- the kind of
thing that Banks would condemn if it were a human servant finding a noble's
toothbrush or some such. The Minds also have the burden of managing almost
all economic activity, serving in the military, and in general making sure
that anyone which needs sentience to do gets done. They're a sort of
combined managerial-worker class.

 >
  > > The Minds are left with the social
  > > competition for leadership that the humans have escaped (because humans
  > > can't really be in leadership positions). The thrill of being a leader
is
  > > something that not all Minds can have, since the whole concept of
leaders
  > > involves not everyone being a leader. It's clear from _Excession_ that
  > > some Minds really do have advisory control over others, especially
during
  > > wartime.
 >
 > The power structure of the Culture, such as it is, is hugely devolved.
 > As with everything in the Culture's 'hierarchy', it's based upon
 > respect of the expertise and experience of the coordinator or
 > coordinating group (a meritocracy if you will), and they only have to
 > follow those instructions as long as they agree with them (retaining
 > the Culture's form of anarchism). Of course during war the attitudes
 > change slightly, but the rules do not.

But, as _Excession_ makes clear, the Minds have status competitions among
themselves -- the Mind that is detailed to following the Sleeper Service,
for instance, worries that its forced itinerary will cause its humans to
leave in greater-than-normal numbers, thus bringing it a loss of status.
The whole concept of meritocracy implies status competition. It may not be
as serious as in a capitalist society, since no one dies from starvation or
lack of medical care if they lose status, but it can still affect happiness.

For that matter, come to think of it, _Excession_ also features a female
character who likes to always be in the news in her home Rock. That's a
pure zero-sum-game if you assume that only a limited number of people can be
news at any one time, and an example of what Hirsch calls positional
goods -- things that are only obtainable through getting higher social
status than other people.

Hirsch basically thought that as productivity increased, and material goods
got closer and closer to being free, people would have more and more
resources free to devote to obtaining positional goods. But none of the
increased resources devoted to this would do society as a whole any good,
because positional goods by their nature only have a limited supply
proportional to the size of the society. I would say that the Culture gets
around this by a mixture of ideology (telling people that they shouldn't
work too hard, and that they shouldn't desire social power), truncation of
the social pyramid (the really important jobs are all held by Minds), and
specialization (allowing people to be near the top of some pyramid by having
very many overlapping pyramids).
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"Richard Puchalsky" writes:



  >>
  >> I've always imagined that examinations were probably more
  >> psychological rather than academic. The Culture's technology can
  >> imbue the average citizen with both superhuman intelligence and a
  >> perfect memory, so there's no really need to test for it.
 >
 > It's mentioned in _Player of Games_ that while SC recruits, Contact
 > waits for you apply. You're right that at least some of the testing
 > is psychological;

I think you guys are missing the fact that Culture society is
engineered by the minds; this includes a certain degree of docility, a
certain degree of inquisitiveness, a certain degree of being someone
who is led rather than someone who leads. I know I read a couple of
suggestions of this in one of the culture novels, but I forget where.

--
Paul
IMO
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"Richard Puchalsky" wrote in message ...
> "David Pirie" wrote in message
>
> > "Richard Puchalsky" wrote in message
> ...

> >
> > <snip>
> > > I can imagine something like this happening with the Culture, in Contact
> for
> > > example. Banks writes that there are examinations you have to pass to
> get
> > > into Contact, so presumably people study for them.
> >
> > I've always imagined that examinations were probably more
> > psychological rather than academic. The Culture's technology can
> > imbue the average citizen with both superhuman intelligence and a
> > perfect memory, so there's no really need to test for it.
>
> I figured that maybe it's really a sort
> of psychological test in disguise; seeing whether they have the ability to
> drive themselves to pick up a specialized set of knowledge might be a proxy
> for seeing how much they really want to be in Contact, and whether they will
> be self-disciplined enough when they get there.

I think you may well be right, although I doubt that they have a pass
mark, at least on a linear scale. Contact is building small,
representative communities for each GCU- just look at the different
characters on the Arbitrary in tSoA- therefore I doubt there is a one
size fits all pass mark. Indeed, those looking for potention SC
members might well look upon cheating on such tests favourably, and
mark down those who instinctively follow the rules.

> There must be some limit to how many people could comfortably live on them.
> But I agree that presumably if a higher percentage of people in the Culture
> decided that they wanted to be in Contact, they could just build more GSVs.

Of course if Contact suddenly receives a huge increase in applications
from suitable persons, there may well be a shortage. But it would
have to be both massive and unforeseen, as Contact undoubtedly has a
fair degree of redundancy built into the system. I'm sure the GSVs
are not operating anything near their capacity under normal
circumstances; they will need a bit extra, if required, for special
circumstances.

<snip>

> > > There are many types of post-economic problems that Banks solves by
> simply
> > > shifting them to the Minds and positing that Minds don't mind doing
> things
> > > that people wouldn't want to do.
> >
> > Don't these jobs go to non-sentient AI machines rather than Minds?
>
> The Minds are often shown doing what amounts to scut work -- the kind of
> thing that Banks would condemn if it were a human servant finding a noble's
> toothbrush or some such. The Minds also have the burden of managing almost
> all economic activity, serving in the military, and in general making sure
> that anyone which needs sentience to do gets done. They're a sort of
> combined managerial-worker class.

Yes, but there aren't forced to do so, it's a choice. Such tasks are
much less of a chore for a Mind than it would be for any other member
of the Culture. The Culture, as proposed by Banks, is entirely
rational. If a Mind can do the job more efficiently then a Mind
should probably do the job. Also, some of the humans do volunteer for
so-called menial work. For evidence we just have to look at Zakalwe's
first time on a GSV.

> >
> > > The Minds are left with the social
> > > competition for leadership that the humans have escaped (because humans
> > > can't really be in leadership positions). The thrill of being a leader
> is
> > > something that not all Minds can have, since the whole concept of
> leaders
> > > involves not everyone being a leader. It's clear from _Excession_ that
> > > some Minds really do have advisory control over others, especially
> during
> > > wartime.
> >
> > The power structure of the Culture, such as it is, is hugely devolved.
> > As with everything in the Culture's 'hierarchy', it's based upon
> > respect of the expertise and experience of the coordinator or
> > coordinating group (a meritocracy if you will), and they only have to
> > follow those instructions as long as they agree with them (retaining
> > the Culture's form of anarchism). Of course during war the attitudes
> > change slightly, but the rules do not.
>
> But, as _Excession_ makes clear, the Minds have status competitions among
> themselves -- the Mind that is detailed to following the Sleeper Service,
> for instance, worries that its forced itinerary will cause its humans to
> leave in greater-than-normal numbers, thus bringing it a loss of status.
> The whole concept of meritocracy implies status competition. It may not be
> as serious as in a capitalist society, since no one dies from starvation or
> lack of medical care if they lose status, but it can still affect happiness.

Yes, to be sure, social status means a lot in the Culture; the
harshest form of punishment the Culture can dish out is social death.
But I'm not sure that I'd call it a competition. I don't think the
Mind is saying that it's going to be relegated down the status list,
because no such pecking order exists. It's about image not
competence. Also, Minds are not entirely unlike most people: they
want to be liked and respected and not the butt of a joke. "Hey,
Angel, the meat sacks seem to be Yawning too." But underneath it all,
the Minds (rationally) will know the reason for the increased
turnover- it chose to shadow the Sleeper Service- and will make
allowances for it.

> For that matter, come to think of it, _Excession_ also features a female
> character who likes to always be in the news in her home Rock. That's a
> pure zero-sum-game if you assume that only a limited number of people can be
> news at any one time,

Not really. The Culture can have as many channels of news as it wants
without penalty. Ulver Seich's life and times is only reported by
news channels that care what Ulver (and people of her ilk) do. I'm
sure the more cerebral and discerning citizen doesn't give her a
second thought.

> and an example of what Hirsch calls positional
> goods -- things that are only obtainable through getting higher social
> status than other people.
>
> Hirsch basically thought that as productivity increased, and material goods
> got closer and closer to being free, people would have more and more
> resources free to devote to obtaining positional goods. But none of the
> increased resources devoted to this would do society as a whole any good,
> because positional goods by their nature only have a limited supply
> proportional to the size of the society. I would say that the Culture gets
> around this by a mixture of ideology (telling people that they shouldn't
> work too hard, and that they shouldn't desire social power),

The latter, certainly, but I'm not sure what you mean by the former.
Yes, I think that if you wanted to joined the Interesting Times Gang,
the worst thing you could do is try too hard to be a member. Ambition
is something that seems to be selected against in the Culture.

> truncation of
> the social pyramid (the really important jobs are all held by Minds),

Largely, I imagine, because they are the only ones who could do those
jobs competently. Nobody would choose a person who was not
intellectually capable of stringing together two coherent sentences to
lead a country. I don't think you should misunderestimate the
difficulties in a number of tasks the Minds undertake.

> and specialization (allowing people to be near the top of some pyramid by
> having very many overlapping pyramids).

I think this may well be the best explanation. If, say, you are not
chosen for the ITG or Contact, you may well be chosen for other
similar tasks you might be better suited for. What the Culture has
over us is that an average Culture citizen would normally take this
rejection rationally, instead of letting resentment fester about their
rejection.

Cheers
Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

Paul Dean wrote in message ...
> "Richard Puchalsky" writes:
>
> > "David Pirie" wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> I've always imagined that examinations were probably more
> >> psychological rather than academic. The Culture's technology can
> >> imbue the average citizen with both superhuman intelligence and a
> >> perfect memory, so there's no really need to test for it.
> >
> > It's mentioned in _Player of Games_ that while SC recruits, Contact
> > waits for you apply. You're right that at least some of the testing
> > is psychological;
>
> I think you guys are missing the fact that Culture society is
> engineered by the minds; this includes a certain degree of docility, a
> certain degree of inquisitiveness, a certain degree of being someone
> who is led rather than someone who leads. I know I read a couple of
> suggestions of this in one of the culture novels, but I forget where.

Perhaps the parts in Excession dealing with Gestra, the misfit, who is
resident at the Pittance store? Banks describes the Culture's
"carefully meddled-with genes". But I don't remember there being any
forced personality engineering going on. They have eliminated
afflictions that may well have adversely affected personality, but I
don't believe there has ever been am enforced set of criteria for the
average Culture citizen, although there is undoubtedly a large amount
of cultural indoctrination performed by the Culture in the formative
years.

If, as you suggest, there is this engineering, why does the Culture
not engineer some people to replace their outside mercenaries? Surely
it would be more elegant, if possible, to source these people from the
population at large rather than having to cherry pick them from other
societies.

Also, Gurgeh begins to behave differently when he is outwith the
Culture and stops speaking Marain. This is considered normal, and the
drone is watching for it. This suggests, to me at any rate, that the
balance obtained by Culture citizens in very much a product of their
environment rather than their genetics.

Cheers
Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"David Pirie" wrote:
> "Richard Puchalsky" wrote in message
...
> > I figured that maybe it's really a sort
> > of psychological test in disguise; seeing whether they have the ability
to
> > drive themselves to pick up a specialized set of knowledge might be a
proxy
> > for seeing how much they really want to be in Contact, and whether they
will
> > be self-disciplined enough when they get there.
>
> I think you may well be right, although I doubt that they have a pass
> mark, at least on a linear scale. Contact is building small,
> representative communities for each GCU- just look at the different
> characters on the Arbitrary in tSoA- therefore I doubt there is a one
> size fits all pass mark. Indeed, those looking for potention SC
> members might well look upon cheating on such tests favourably, and
> mark down those who instinctively follow the rules.

Some of the crew of the _Arbitrary_ may seem a bit odd, but in fact almost
all of them are disciplined enough to wander the Earth, impersonating
locals, without giving in to any one of a number of impulses that might
reveal a normal Culture citizen. I'm sure that the Culture doesn't want
regimented automatons in Contact, but from the point of view of the larger
Culture the crew of the _Arbitrary_ might appear ... somwhat compulsive, if
nothing else. From a comment that Banks makes elsewhere about artists, I
think, I get the impression that a lot of what makes someone a standout at
some specialized task in the Culture is a degree of focus that other Culture
citizens perceive as a bit funny.

> > The Minds are often shown doing what amounts to scut work -- the kind of
> > thing that Banks would condemn if it were a human servant finding a
noble's
> > toothbrush or some such. The Minds also have the burden of managing
almost
> > all economic activity, serving in the military, and in general making
sure
> > that anyone which needs sentience to do gets done. They're a sort of
> > combined managerial-worker class.
>
> Yes, but there aren't forced to do so, it's a choice. Such tasks are
> much less of a chore for a Mind than it would be for any other member
> of the Culture. The Culture, as proposed by Banks, is entirely
> rational. If a Mind can do the job more efficiently then a Mind
> should probably do the job. Also, some of the humans do volunteer for
> so-called menial work. For evidence we just have to look at Zakalwe's
> first time on a GSV.

The menial work that the humans do as entertainment must be negligible in
proportion to the total amount of such work that needs to be done. Sure,
one Culture citizen is depicted as liking to wash tables -- but those tables
have to be washed 24 hours a day (or on whatever sleep cycle the shipboard
humans maintain).

And there's a lot of coercion hidden in that rationality. As Banks says in
_Look to Windward_, whenever someone builds a "perfect" mentality without
inbuilt preconceptions or tendencies, its first act is always to go and try
to Sublime. This clearly implies that the reason the Minds hang around and
run the Culture is because they have at some level been designed to want to
do so.

And once they are in the Culture, the rational push for efficiency equates
to job pressure. If a Mind wants to do nothing, it has to ignore the
continuous indications that jobs are being done less efficiently that they
could be done if it were doing them. Everywhere it looks, it sees
indications that it should get to work.

I think that this argument comes down to the statement that the Minds really
don't mind doing this work, because it is such a negligable demand on their
time. But, as I wrote originally, this amounts to solving these types of
problems by "shifting them to the Minds and positing that Minds don't mind
doing things that people wouldn't want to do."

[...]

> > For that matter, come to think of it, _Excession_ also features a female
> > character who likes to always be in the news in her home Rock. That's a
> > pure zero-sum-game if you assume that only a limited number of people
can be
> > news at any one time,
>
> Not really. The Culture can have as many channels of news as it wants
> without penalty. Ulver Seich's life and times is only reported by
> news channels that care what Ulver (and people of her ilk) do. I'm
> sure the more cerebral and discerning citizen doesn't give her a
> second thought.

But here we get back to that subset of socially limited goods called the
attention economy. The Culture can have as many channels of news as it
wants, but news readers are in limited supply. (As are news writers, unless
news can be written by nonsentient AIs.) If you assume that people like
attention, then you've discovered a zero sum game for it. Each person can
contribute, at maximum, one person-year's worth of attention per year to the
attention economy, assuming that they do nothing else with their time but
pay attention to other people. Each person can desire more than one
person-year of attention during that time, however, because the whole
concept of "wanting to be news" implies that you want attention from
multiple people at the same time. So it's easy to imagine the total demand
for attention exceeding the total supply, and consequent competition for
attention which only some people can win.

Sure, someone like Ulver can specialize in the equivalent of attention from
lovestruck youth, and give up on attention from cerebral people, but the
amount of attention from lovestruck youth is still limited.

Maybe one of the reasons that we so often see Minds doing things for people
is that Minds balance the Culture's attention economy, since they can
apparently pay attention to millions of people at once.

>
> > and an example of what Hirsch calls positional
> > goods -- things that are only obtainable through getting higher social
> > status than other people.
> >
> > Hirsch basically thought that as productivity increased, and material
goods
> > got closer and closer to being free, people would have more and more
> > resources free to devote to obtaining positional goods. But none of the
> > increased resources devoted to this would do society as a whole any
good,
> > because positional goods by their nature only have a limited supply
> > proportional to the size of the society. I would say that the Culture
gets
> > around this by a mixture of ideology (telling people that they shouldn't
> > work too hard, and that they shouldn't desire social power),
>
> The latter, certainly, but I'm not sure what you mean by the former.
> Yes, I think that if you wanted to joined the Interesting Times Gang,
> the worst thing you could do is try too hard to be a member. Ambition
> is something that seems to be selected against in the Culture.

Telling people not to work too hard avoids having them get into competitive
spirals for those positional goods that do exist. Presumably some of them
must exist, unless the Culture is very careful.

>
> > truncation of
> > the social pyramid (the really important jobs are all held by Minds),
>
> Largely, I imagine, because they are the only ones who could do those
> jobs competently. Nobody would choose a person who was not
> intellectually capable of stringing together two coherent sentences to
> lead a country. I don't think you should misunderestimate the
> difficulties in a number of tasks the Minds undertake.

Funny.

>
> > and specialization (allowing people to be near the top of some pyramid
by
> > having very many overlapping pyramids).
>
> I think this may well be the best explanation. If, say, you are not
> chosen for the ITG or Contact, you may well be chosen for other
> similar tasks you might be better suited for. What the Culture has
> over us is that an average Culture citizen would normally take this
> rejection rationally, instead of letting resentment fester about their
> rejection.

Sure, although "chosen" isn't the word I'd use -- only SC really seems to
choose people. Rather, people take on hobbies that correspond to every
variety of what a capitalist society calls job categories, and by doing them
well achieve recognition from other humans with the same hobby.
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

(David Pirie) writes:


  >>
  >> I think you guys are missing the fact that Culture society is
  >> engineered by the minds; this includes a certain degree of
  >> docility, a certain degree of inquisitiveness, a certain degree of
  >> being someone who is led rather than someone who leads. I know I
  >> read a couple of suggestions of this in one of the culture novels,
  >> but I forget where.
 >
 > Perhaps the parts in Excession dealing with Gestra, the misfit, who
 > is resident at the Pittance store? Banks describes the Culture's
 > "carefully meddled-with genes". But I don't remember there being
 > any forced personality engineering going on. They have eliminated
 > afflictions that may well have adversely affected personality, but I
 > don't believe there has ever been am enforced set of criteria for
 > the average Culture citizen, although there is undoubtedly a large
 > amount of cultural indoctrination performed by the Culture in the
 > formative years.
 >
 > If, as you suggest, there is this engineering, why does the Culture
 > not engineer some people to replace their outside mercenaries?

It's easier to alter a species rather than individual - easy to deny
too.

The "carefully meddled-with genes" is explicit tinkering so that
culture citizens will be content with their lot. So, for example,
they won't be natural leaders because human leaders would be
destructive, or more difficult for the Minds to manage.

Your comment about Marain is good too - we know that the Minds created
the language so that it would create a particular mind-set. Couple
species-wide genetic alteration with a very powerfully view-forming
language and you have how the Minds control the human society so that
it stays in its equilibrium.

--
Paul
IMO
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"Richard Puchalsky" wrote in message


> Imagine another society with the same tech level as the Culture and
close to
> the same values, but with a higher communal orientation and less value
on
> personal freedom (more communist, less anarchist). It's possible to
imagine
> a strongly held social expectation that people will spend a lot of
time in
> certain groups, and take turns paying attention to each other in some
> fashion. This might redistribute the attention much more evenly over
the
> society, so that everyone was guaranteed to get nearly the same amount
as
> everyone else. Of course, there would be a corresponding loss of
freedom.
> Such a society might plausibly argue that it was "richer" than the
Culture,
> or at least that the only remaining limited form of riches was more
> equitably distributed. (I'm not suggesting that such a society would
be
> better -- this is again just a thought experiment).

Hm, distributive attention economy? Kind of society-wide support group.
I like it (the idea, not economy)!

Bonzi
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"Dragi Bonzi Raos" wrote in message

> "Richard Puchalsky" wrote in message
>
>
> > Imagine another society with the same tech level as the Culture and
> close to
> > the same values, but with a higher communal orientation and less value
> on
> > personal freedom (more communist, less anarchist). It's possible to
> imagine
> > a strongly held social expectation that people will spend a lot of
> time in
> > certain groups, and take turns paying attention to each other in some
> > fashion. This might redistribute the attention much more evenly over
> the
> > society, so that everyone was guaranteed to get nearly the same amount
> as
> > everyone else. Of course, there would be a corresponding loss of
> freedom.
> > Such a society might plausibly argue that it was "richer" than the
> Culture,
> > or at least that the only remaining limited form of riches was more
> > equitably distributed. (I'm not suggesting that such a society would
> be
> > better -- this is again just a thought experiment).
>
> Hm, distributive attention economy? Kind of society-wide support group.
> I like it (the idea, not economy)!

It's funny to think of how this idea could be brought further and further to
the "left" (if "left" in this context means favoring an even distribution of
limited resources and equality of outcome). Imagine further that the
society not only wants to ensure that each person gets a base level of
attention (the society-wide support group), but also that they want to make
sure that no one gets a really unusual amount of attention (i.e. no one is
famous, so no one can be jealous of fame or dejected at not getting it or
always trying to get it).

Let's further assume that the society wants some way of doing this that does
imply giving up some biological aspect of what we consider to be normal
humanity -- for instance, no cloning everyone, no telepathy, etc. It still
seems like there might be ways of doing it. For instance, all news could be
automatically censored so that people's names didn't go through, and there
could be no human interest stories or identifiable entertainers. And,
perhaps, each person could have a defined role within their local group, and
new developments could be transmitted anonymously within each group of
specialists, so that each person within their local group could pretend that
all developments / work in their specialty area was done by that person,
rather than by that group of people. (As long as the different specialties
didn't start to differ from each other in social desirability, of course.)
And you'd really have to keep people from communicating directly with others
too far outside of their local group, or people could get famous on an
informal basis just though some personal quirk.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of ways to do this that don't cut
dramatically into what we think of as personal freedom. Unless you want to
imagine a dystopia rather than a utopia, probably the best way to do this is
to imagine building machine sentiences that can pay attention to many things
at once without requiring much themselves. As long as their attention was
not distinguishably different from human attention, they could replicate the
Culture's situation with respect to material goods (i.e. such high
productivity and consequent oversupply that no one cares how much any one
person has, because anyone can have as much as they want). Arguably, Banks
has already allowed for this, at least in potential.
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

"Richard Puchalsky" wrote:
> Let's further assume that the society wants some way of doing this that
does
> imply giving up some biological aspect of what we consider to be normal
> humanity

Oops, should be does *not* imply.
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth 

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:56:10 +0100, Paul Dean
wrote:

>It's easier to alter a species rather than individual - easy to deny
>too.
>
>The "carefully meddled-with genes" is explicit tinkering so that
>culture citizens will be content with their lot. So, for example,
>they won't be natural leaders because human leaders would be
>destructive, or more difficult for the Minds to manage.
>
>Your comment about Marain is good too - we know that the Minds created
>the language so that it would create a particular mind-set. Couple
>species-wide genetic alteration with a very powerfully view-forming
>language and you have how the Minds control the human society so that
>it stays in its equilibrium.

I finally got around to reading Babel 17* (Samuel Delaney) recently.
The most satisafaction I derived from the book was discovering the
probable source for IMB's idea of a language (Marain in the Culture,
Babel 17 in Delaney's novel) that directly influences or constrains
human behaviour.

(* one of a "top ten" list of novels said by Banks to have been
influential or inspirational in his own writing).

--
Regards,
Loz {>
(been away a while!)
 >> Stay informed about: Social limits to growth