Comments on: Who is John Galt?

By: rhcclark

rhcclark — Tue, 17 May 2011 21:30:22 +0000

I urge those of you who consider yourself Randites but are willing to confront your own cognitive biases going into overdrive reframing reality to fit your beliefs, to find the current issue of New Scientist and read these short articles http://www.newscientist.com/special/the-grand-delusion. After which you will KNOW if you are a Seeker of Reality or a Religious Fanatic. Go on I dare you!

By: richkl

richkl — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:59:20 +0000

Good points glarson. Rather than debate the validity of Rand’s philosophy, I think it more productive to question the validity of philosophy period! Then its relevance to this site can be seen.
Philosophy is the science of integration. Valid philosophies build on integrating the abstract and the concrete (ideas and reality). Invalid philosophies advocate disintegration, the disconnecting of ideas and reality. The primary value of a valid philosophy is to save one time. For example; time spent trying to understand good ideas vs. bad ones.
Relevant to your ScienceDaily link and questions on human motivation is that one big fountainhead of creativity and productivity is freedom. Freedom is the absence of command economies and the absence of command altruism. Such absence allows self motivated people to keep what they honestly work for.
I have not seen a valid argument against voluntary giving. But command giving (commanded by governments) is literally a childish philosophy. It assumes a parent child relationship by some over others.
How far into the singularity would we be now if human potential were more encouraged instead of discouraged by command structures and religious dogma? My guess is much, much further.
Philosophy is too important to leave up to philosophers. Let each individual, using induction, examine fundamentals and honestly build on them. Peace.

By: glarson

glarson — Wed, 04 May 2011 18:02:21 +0000

I don’t have time to read all these posts but it seems everyone is discussing topical political points rather than evaluating the validity of Ms. Rand’s philosophy and most importantly its possible relevance to AI research. Which is after all what this site is about (hello?).
Perhaps some of you might want to read this article (link below) about actual scientific findings regarding the evolutionary value\influence of altruism and then maybe someone could contribute their thoughts on rational egoism vs ethical altruism and how they might compete in an AI evolutionary model. I happen to be a rabid liberal but I try to evaluate ideas based on their merit rather than what someone on Fox or MSNBC tells me to think.
It is possible that studying her philosophy, regardless of how childish it may seem, might provide insight into human motivation and evolution which is partly what AI research is trying to quantify and reproduce.

Here is the ScienceDaily link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503171737.htm

Pardon me if I sound parental but I am so sick of the antogonistic political media scene in this country that feeds anger in order to sell advertising and divide and conquer the electorate. Don’t you feel used? I suppose you can look at it as part of our painful march towards Kurzweil’s alleged singularity but I wish we could manage a little more dignity along the way.

By: tombr

tombr — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:40:42 +0000

I disagree, but I guess it is a bit of a taste thing. AS is very long – and the didactic style can grate a bit. The Heinlein book is a crackerjack, highly recommended.

I would not describe AS as “naive”, though. It lays out, in alarmingly convincing detail, how an economy and society goes to hell in the grip of bad ideas. No wonder the book is selling in big numbers nowadays.

JM: I am interested in your use of the words “self-serving.”. Anyone who is alive rather than dead is “self serving” by the simple act of breathing!

By: RobPreece

RobPreece — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:01:10 +0000

I have no problem with authors pitching naieve libertarian fantasies. My problem with Atlas Shrugged was that, except for some sex scenes, it’s boring. Listening to John Gault go on about how money isn’t the root of evil because it can’t be the root of anything and then proving that it’s the root of all good could, perhaps, have been condensed from 200 pages to 1 page without loss of content. If you want naieve libertarian fantasies with some sex, I definitely recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for far superior reading.

By: JM

JM — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:03:27 +0000

I was planning on picking up a copy of “The Singularity Is Near” until I saw this all-but-endorsement of Ayn Rand’s thinking. If the singularity is near, we should leave “greed is good” ideologies like Rand’s behind. A bunch of self-serving augmented humans would turn the future into a nightmare very quickly.

By: Jake Witmer

Jake Witmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:29:03 +0000

Read the book. Or, apply artilect chip, then read the book again.

By: Jake Witmer

Jake Witmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:28:05 +0000

Yes, it was good, considering the budget.

By: Jake Witmer

Jake Witmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:27:34 +0000

Rand wrestled with interesting ideas. Early on, she was sympathetic to the less finished, more sociopathic, views of Nietzsche. She eventually rejected the idea of “the will to power”, in exchange for pure voluntary exchange. Of course, that she failed to consistently apply her philosophy in real life is a source of much confusion to many people. (Mostly, the same people who think Reagan was a defender of “a free market” …LOL.)

By: Jake Witmer

Jake Witmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:24:03 +0000

Yes. Now, let’s get our heads out of our asses, and reinstate the proper jury trials that western civilization depends on.

By: Jake Witmer

Jake Witmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:23:09 +0000

The film is not the Terence Malick masterpiece I wanted it to be, but it’s good, and the message is faithful within the scope of what’s possible in 1.5 hours. :D

By: Jake Witmer

Jake Witmer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:22:12 +0000

I agree. My early efforts on the old KAI paid off. …Or I’m taking credit for too much. LOL! I would like to see an immersion in the libertarian minutiae on this site. Especially regarding the now-shrinking and infringed technology of proper jury trials.

By: tombr

tombr — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:44:15 +0000

Saker: the economic disaster in the West was not caused by the sort of pure free market banking system espoused by Rand. If we had had gold-backed money, for instance, rather than the sort of crazy, papermoney printing by the Fed, there would have been no housing bubble. I wish people who keep claiming that the sub-prime mortgage disaster was caused by “mad laissez faire” could actually study what Rand, Friedman and others actually said.

Abyssal: to descibe Rand as regarding a “serial killer as humanity’s ideal” is pure insanity. How is encouraging people to enjoy freedom, happiness and prosperity sociopathic?

Such nonsense aside, most of the reviews I have seen of the film have been mixed. But I hope to see the film, although in the UK where I live it is more likely to be available only on DVD.

By: billhallla@aol.com

billhallla@aol.com — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:33:48 +0000

Perfect!

By: richkl

richkl — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:01:18 +0000

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 The movie’s main theme stages a mystery.

What is wrong with the world? (Who is John Galt?)
The mystery builds with the characters learning the answer.
This is an important movie based on Ayn Rand’s novel.

What was Rand’s philosophy really all about?
In short: It is that – Reason, Honesty, and Freedom are interactive corollaries.

Throughout history in any culture, the more reason one found, the more honesty was apparent, and the more honest people were, the more individual freedom and prosperity there was.

If this is of value to you – try reading her books.

Did Ayn Rand make mistakes? Yes, many.
The only people who don’t make mistakes are the ones who do nothing.

Ayn Rand was a highly intelligent, high energy person who often accomplished more in days or months than her many dishonest critics accomplish in a life time.

By: Saker

Saker — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:56:11 +0000

I couldn’t agree more!
The economic disaster we here in the US and other nations across the western world are still trying to dig out of are the fault of these same lunatic-right (wrong) wingers and their mad laissez-faire beliefs. Rand, (saint) Reagan, and Milton Friedman are all sharing a special place in the bad-place if there happened to be any cosmic justice.

By: RedQ

RedQ — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:44:58 +0000

Amanda, I apologize forever for calling you Moderatrix.

By: stirfry

stirfry — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:15:37 +0000

I find Randian ideals to be quite harmful in a world heading towards singularity. Rand romanticized a certain breed of laissez fair capitalism. Glorifying these ideas is dangerous in an era where rapidly increasing numbers of people will have no necessary labor to trade for money.

We should prepare for an era where massive structural unemployment is a fact of life. This will be a side effect of technology and not anyone’s fault. When automation and outsourcing eliminates all the low tier jobs we can “go Galt” and kick the massive hoards of unemployed while they are down(possibly triggering civil unrest or revolution), or we can strive to find a new system that works in a world where the employment rate drops or plateaus but never goes up for a sustained period. Capitalism in general is poorly suited to create a stable civic society in such a situation, and libertarianism or objectivism in particular are even more poorly suited.

By: Lacey

Lacey — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:04:21 +0000

I saw this film last week. This is one is described as part 1 of 3 parts. I read the book many years ago. I like/d the concept, all though there were some extremely long winded “bureaucrats” in the book which the film didn’t reproduce accurately — thank heavens. I liked the concept of the film, too, although it left a lot out. On the other hand, the book ran 1000 pages in small type.

What is it all about: a story about how, in the normal course of business, some very talented and together folks run into one official problem after another. Not onlike what happens these days.

For example, the Bay Bridge. between San Francisco and Oakland, had a small portion fall apart during an earthquake more than twenty years ago. The replacement still isn’t finished. Smaller examples are normal and unavoidable. No houses can be built because of regulations and extremely lengthy rules that require YEARS worth of meetings and discussions and more meetings.

So, many talented and together people “go on strike.”

Then what happens? The answer is followed in Parts 2 and 3. The name “Who is John Galt?” appears regularly in the film.

Some sex involved. An appealing movie.

By: JimmyBaggs

JimmyBaggs — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:15:02 +0000

@Allentown:

Alan Greenspan’s policies at the Federal Reserve were not an implementation of Ayn Rand’s ideas. Rand was vehemently against the existence of a Federal Reserve bank for a number of reasons, but at its core, a Central Bank represents coercive government control of the actions of private citizens.

For an insightful explanation of the market meltdown, I recommend searching online for a video lecture by John Allison. Allison was the long time CEO of BB&T, a bank which abstained from the subprime fiasco and was later pushed to take unneeded TARP money.

By: benjamin fridkis

benjamin fridkis — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:28:11 +0000

So awesome that this is on Kurzweil’s site.

By: Allentown

Allentown — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:25:54 +0000

I haven’t seen this film yet, but I admire anyone for attempting a version of “Atlas Shrugged”; the depth of the concepts, characters and story make this extremely daunting. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is interesting to me primarily as a counter to 20th century communism and totalitarianism, but I honestly don’t believe it would operate as intended if it was actually implemented into our society. I agree that talented, motivated and skilled people should be free to create and pursue their ideas and profit from them without undue outside interference. But I don’t believe that having and enforcing good regulations or having a tax system is anathema to freedom or to an individual’s ability to advance technology and create prosperity. As a younger man and a member of Rand’s inner circle, Alan Greenspan later developed Objectivist philosophies into policies as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and implemented them as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank from 1987-2006. The repeal of the Glass-Steagal act in 1999, low interest rates maintained by the Fed maintained combined with a era of deregulation and weak enforcement by the SEC (along with many other factors) compounded and made the financial crisis of 2007-2008 much worse. So while this film may be a compelling work of fiction, right now Americans and much of the world are trying to recover from a recession where enacted Objectivist policies contributed greatly to the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Not sure what a movie about that would be called? Atlas got drunk, tripped and dropped the World? No, that title’s probably too long. Sort of like this post.

By: JimmyBaggs

JimmyBaggs — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:57:48 +0000

Atlas Shrugged demonstrates what every futurist implicitly understands: The reasoning mind is the source of all of mankind’s achievements. The mind must be respected and left free to bring about the bright future of humanity.

Any person who loves technology and the improvements to life that it brings should admire the theme of Atlas Shrugged. The film is an honest attempt to capture Ayn Rand’s vision, but to understand fully the ideas behind it, one must read the novel.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:51:44 +0000

Perhaps someone can write a novel from a different perspective, Atlas Stomped.

By: Porkov

Porkov — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:02:17 +0000

It is disheartening to see this discussion head immediately to a collision with Godwin. It strikes me as ignorant to conflate Rand’s philosophy with any form of the totalitarianism she so vehemently loathed and whose underpinnings she attacked at every opportunity. Willful ignorance aggravates me, and it seems to me that’s a more common trait in educated people with an exaggerated opinion of their intelligence than is the humility that comes from an open mind. This makes “geniuses” depressingly like the rest of us.

By: Khannea Suntzu

Khannea Suntzu — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:42 +0000

Bilballlia, good idea, let’s next discuss the marvelous engineering works of Albert Speer. I am sure his Volkshalle (which would have had it’s own weather system composed of hot air) could easy fit a flying spaghetti monster.

By: Khannea Suntzu

Khannea Suntzu — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:29:21 +0000

I am not much enchanted with the values espoused by miss Rand. She exemplifies so much which is straight-faced, cluelessly depraved in our world. I’d go as far and strawman her from behind against a soho lavatory and say it’s no wonder she was such an influence on both Allen Greenspan and Anton Szandor Lavey.

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/was-ayn-rand-a-sociopath/

http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/2011/04/13/review_atlas_shrugged_part_i_a_stiff_soulless_cut-rate_adaptation_of_ayn/

It is disappointing this perfidious ideology, which tastes as bitter and barren as some other failed and murderous ideologies of the 20th century, has found so much traction here.

I suppose it’s follow the [paypal] money, right?

By: billhallla@aol.com

billhallla@aol.com — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:13:00 +0000

Just because you disagree with her philosophy is no reason for this web sight to not publicize the movie. The incredible and continuing popularity of this book demands that it be recognised and even praised. What’s next, a creationist damming this sight for preaching evolutionary theories and the coming singularity? Have an open mind. Ask why this book continues to draw people. Discard that which is obviously ridiculous and contemplate what draws people to it. Learn from it.

By: artwalsh

artwalsh — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:00:47 +0000

I applaud the decision to offer the trailer to Atlas Shrugged at this website. I will use the same thought process that Abyssal applies by simply rebutting: Rand’s novel is not sociopathic far-right nonsense concocted by someone who saw a serial killer as humanity’s ideal. So there!

By: Porkov

Porkov — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:53:26 +0000

I was very impressed, especially considering the budget of this indie film. It is refreshing to see something that challenges doctrinaire collectivism and portrays the perils of government regulation. Government officials are just as human as the rest of us, and deliberately put themselves in the path of power’s corrupting influence. How smart is that? A convoy moves at the speed of the slowest vehicle. Great discoveries and the progress that follows them are usually made possible first by extraordinarily gifted individuals.

By: Abyssal

Abyssal — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:09:12 +0000

I’m really disappointed in this site for promoting this sociopathic far-right nonsense concocted by someone who saw a serial killer as humanity’s ideal. Disgusting.