From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:26:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.105810@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A A
hlock) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.054127.10572@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs.
u.edu
>(Alan Smith) writes:
>> 
>> Censorship: (cen-ser-ship) n. When a government removes or edits a
>> publication, brodcast, or other form of public adress.
>> 
>> Rudeness: (rud-nes) n. a group of actions that violate common standard
 of
>> politeness.  Often done deliberately to invoke bad feelings on the par
 of
>> the recipient.
>> 
>> --Big Al's personal dictionary.
>
>   Thank you for clearing me of charges of censorship.
> 
>> They are both uncool, but for different reasons.  Censorship is uncool
>> because it is a step towards tyranny.  Rudeness is uncool (besides bei
g a
>> good way to get yourself punched in the mouth) because it violates the
>> homo sapien survival stragedy, that humans should help each other out.
>
>   This view is incorrect via oversimplification.  In fact the default
>(pre-civilization) strategy of homo sapiens seems to have been a combina
ion
>of cooperation and competition at different levels.  Since the only thin

>that people could compete with (the only thing tough enough) was other
>people, there must have been a whole lots of competition between people 
o get
>us from caveman to the present in such a screaming hurry.
>
>   Civilization only somewhat mitigated this process.  Why, for example,
were
>Athens, Sparta, et. al. able to trash Darius and Maul Xerxes?  My guess:
>lots of practice beating the crap out of one another followed by brief
>cooperation during the Persian invasion.

>etc.
>

>> Big Al.  Morals?? Oh, dear, there goes the neighborhood.
>Please refute.
>
Okay, but you asked for it:  I think that you are correct in that I *did*
oversimplify.  The picture I painted was one of a hippie's eden, where
everyone loved everything, cooperated beyond belief, etc. So, competition
is included in the human survival stragedy.  (How *do* you spell that?)

In a way, it's analgous to wolfpacks.  The wolves all cooperate with each
other, even though they're at the top of their food chain.  When wolves
set down to eat, the dominant ones (those that have one their little
internal competition) eat first.  (The theory is that the dominant ones
are "fitter" and only a well fed wolf will reproduce.)  Now, when humans
sit down to eat, food is shared equally, and the dominant ones have been
known to give up food in time of shortage.

A human, alone and tooless, is pretty well fucked when in comes to
competing in an ecosystem.  A group of humans, however are one of the more
powerful forces in the global ecosystem.

THEORY: In time of shortage of nonsurvival desires (status, beads, money,
etc.) the competition is among individual humans.  But when the
competition is among survival issues (food, oil in kuwait, the east coast
of greece) Groups of humans compete.

Big Al.  Standard theory disclaimer:  that was just a THEORY, if you think
that God handed that down to me, see a pshrink.  If you can prove it
wrong, I will write "Dut it.