tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post7029252007588407012..comments2020-10-03T06:18:18.780-07:00Comments on Progressive Positive: Naivete: The Essential Fuel for WarLanceMillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967321155433918187noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post-78410402401880467132008-01-21T10:26:00.000-08:002008-01-21T10:26:00.000-08:00Let's be clear about who we are talking about here...Let's be clear about who we are talking about here with Dr. Anderson:<BR/><BR/>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html<BR/><BR/>I hope that games DO make kids more aggressive. What is the difference between this highly-participatory election and others? A big part is "young people" - why are there so many more "young people" participating? Why are so many generation Y kids getting political an generation X kids did?<BR/><BR/>Because they are A) expecting interactivity in their engagement, and B) they are magnitudes more aggressive on average than Xer's are. A and B are do to a higher number of gen Y's playing computer games regularly growing up than gen X (and the only evidence I need to site here is Anderson's study linked to above.)<BR/><BR/>Computer games are probably saving our democracy, do to traits that Dr. Anderson regards as great social evils.<BR/><BR/>For every change, there is resistance. This is of course true with social and technological changes. Right now people get their PHD's on computer games making little kids misbehave (as if that were a bad thing. Also, we are seeing serious MySpace/FaceBook fobia emerging as well.) Before this it was Television, and before Television it was the Movies and Radio. Some still just whole-sale reject electricity. If you go back far enough, I'm sure you could eventually find religious opposition to the wheel as a socially corrupting influence.B. F. Galbraithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07584029720031925872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post-72250122746837775352008-01-20T09:57:00.000-08:002008-01-20T09:57:00.000-08:00"Zero summers don't get abstract processes. They e..."Zero summers don't get abstract processes. They equate money and political power with simple measures of mass and heat. "<BR/><BR/>Ok, this statement rocks like early Van Halen.LanceMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967321155433918187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post-3141075816593754672008-01-20T09:46:00.000-08:002008-01-20T09:46:00.000-08:00When choosing between trade and war, the nature of...When choosing between trade and war, the nature of Empire demands that world leaders only choose war when it will benefit trade. In Iraq War I trade was threatened by an economic nationalist seizing resources beyond his own borders. Iraq War II was justified on the (appropriate but as it turns out false) premise that the same economic nationalist was going to nuke wall street and a hidden cabal of Iraqi traders was ready to replace his regime with what Empire calls Democracy.<BR/><BR/>Here's what I make of those who want to substitute the abstract concepts of Empire, trade and war with the more concrete and juvenile notion of "war for oil": these folks are zero-summers. Zero summers don't get abstract processes. They equate money and political power with simple measures of mass and heat. Zero summers include many but not all hawks and tree-huggers. While adults may see our age of peak oil as a time of dangerous instability but also opportunities to invest in rapid change, the zero-summers see it as the last chance to grab territory before we are forced to resort to cannibalism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072541194513236270noreply@blogger.com