Just a thought.

I am joking of course, but stranger things have happened. You can own a farm, but have conveyable mineral rights, and land use rights, that render the whole of the property unusable by the owner.

The problem is, you won't be able to hammer down the health of the patient to the lowest cost option, only the most effective.

Also, why was B.F. Skinner allowed to have so much influence on the way we structure our educational system?

Any out-patient nutritional studies showing GI intestinal biome data with positive growth conclusions?

While I understand what you are saying, unless you have some context, the above values are useless to think about and may even be detrimental, unless you have some sort of algebraic commutation of language.

However, if you can evaluate some of these terms in your own life, and find others that also value the same things, and communicate in the same terms in an interview then, yes that may work.

That would be a good start.

A step in the right direction would be to require all business in that area, to be non-profit, to lessen the shock of just taking away the industry altogether and federalizing it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29094133

Points: 69

# Comments: 117

I wonder what is harder to maintain, a corrupt system for a few people, or an equitable system for many?

On the coast of Senegal, fishing is the only way to survive. For those that don't fish, there are few jobs that can be had, such as unloading the fish, or sorting them for transportation. The rest join in the economy by taking fish off the boats, or retrieving the fish that have fallen in the water, or stealing them off the boats when they come back to shore. Even if the fisherman push them off the boats, and take back their fish, they will still come back everyday, because there is no other way available to survive. Ethics aren't afforded to a society where people still have to make life or death decisions on a daily basis.

By extension, developed societies are not afforded virtue ethics, when important indices such as well-being, happiness, and the full range of emotional satisfactions, indicative of an intelligent species, are not met. These are maintained by a network of both physical resources, and societal connections.

Maslow, again, comes to mind, detailing how the physical and emotional needs of a person can work to achieve a better human. However, in some modern societies the practical pyramid of needs gets skewed, to only a few people. Will it ever be perfect? I don't think that is ever achievable, but if the goals remain myopic, you may never be able to improve, unless there are interalgic and dedicated people doing so.

Virtue doesn't extend up the human hierarchy even if you enforce it with ethics.

What you are talking about is a war-based society, a fault-tolerant system, with lots of redundancy, that runs through conflict and chaos. The last two decades were an experiment in that one.