@Surio:
I think we are already half-way there in Brave New World. I mean, these are our ideals, consumption and distraction. I also believe that most jobs are already obsolete and it's only about distributing the wealth to fend off an uprising of the lower classes. Of course only to an extent, with the background theme still being the redistribution of wealth to a small percentage of people.
That traders don't add much to the wealth of nations is pretty obvious, I think. The market starts with x$ and ends with x$ only differently distributed, rinse and repeat. Computers are even better at being an emotionless homo oeconomicus than the psychopaths which are usually employed in these fields so I think that this development is a good thing.
Sure, other jobs like actors and sports celebrities are also questionable in terms of payment, but that inconsistency in perception doesn't put the lack of productivity of the financial sector into question.
I believe that the "He who doesn't work shall not eat." credo is obsolete in a post-industrial world, if only because it's not even applied in any meaningful sense anymore. It's just that we are running an economic system based on artificial scarcity of money. I don't think there's any meaningful change possible unless that system is replaced by something sustainable.
Most "work" these days is just giving some people access to the products created by a vast machinerie (- and slaves like Foxconn-interns, who don't get any access to the wealth they create at all).
Jacob's Journal
@Bigato
Thanks, I just could not remember what that topic was, though I remembered a nice heated discussion.
@Secretwealth
I disagree, a little on your trader point (a lot on Surio's model). Your point is valid, but I would argue my "more traders than needed" point is too. If you look at how much Wall Street has grown in the last 20-30 years I don't see how it can't be. Both are just part of a whole host of reasons for the 2008 crash and the current derivative debacle highlighted by Aussierogue. Which, is really odd and frightening.
@Felix
I couldn't agree more. Everyone talks about all the jobs that went to China, but no one seems to realize the U.S. produces more now than when it was THE manufacturing powerhouse. We don't produce more because our assembly line workers work faster now than they did in the 50's, but because of automated systems. We are well on our way to society that needs far far far less human workers for far more production. We are going to need to face how to alocate this wealth without work in our lifetimes.
Of course, a commodity shortage could derail that, but other than that I don't see how there isn't a major change to how we work/distribute wealth in the next 20-30 years.
Thanks, I just could not remember what that topic was, though I remembered a nice heated discussion.
@Secretwealth
I disagree, a little on your trader point (a lot on Surio's model). Your point is valid, but I would argue my "more traders than needed" point is too. If you look at how much Wall Street has grown in the last 20-30 years I don't see how it can't be. Both are just part of a whole host of reasons for the 2008 crash and the current derivative debacle highlighted by Aussierogue. Which, is really odd and frightening.
@Felix
I couldn't agree more. Everyone talks about all the jobs that went to China, but no one seems to realize the U.S. produces more now than when it was THE manufacturing powerhouse. We don't produce more because our assembly line workers work faster now than they did in the 50's, but because of automated systems. We are well on our way to society that needs far far far less human workers for far more production. We are going to need to face how to alocate this wealth without work in our lifetimes.
Of course, a commodity shortage could derail that, but other than that I don't see how there isn't a major change to how we work/distribute wealth in the next 20-30 years.
Jacob, it looks like your journal thread needs a comment section for every post.
> depend on the internalised rules of thumbs of actors(or users or players) for interaction, performance, rules and algorithms.
Is it possible to characterize these rules of thumb? No doubt people try to profit off of predicting other people's decisions.
Bigger question: It is possible in some cooperative systems to detect when an actor becomes uncooperative, e.g., Byzantine fault tolerance. Is it possible to base an economic system on this idea?
Smaller note: My wardrobe is approaching steady-state. I have a few alterations left on my to-do list, like taking in shirts and blazers and hemming pants, but I'm pretty happy with it, and it's only getting smaller as I prune.
> depend on the internalised rules of thumbs of actors(or users or players) for interaction, performance, rules and algorithms.
Is it possible to characterize these rules of thumb? No doubt people try to profit off of predicting other people's decisions.
Bigger question: It is possible in some cooperative systems to detect when an actor becomes uncooperative, e.g., Byzantine fault tolerance. Is it possible to base an economic system on this idea?
Smaller note: My wardrobe is approaching steady-state. I have a few alterations left on my to-do list, like taking in shirts and blazers and hemming pants, but I'm pretty happy with it, and it's only getting smaller as I prune.
It's easy to find compromises made in any large system. All large systems have inefficiencies. The current market system requires traders. We know that, because they exist and make profit.
Sure, the ideal market would be 100% liquid with no middle men. Design and implement that system in a way that scales, and you'll probably be the richest person in the world.
I do suspect the allowed frequency of trades under the current market rules is too high. When even the time it takes for a trade to travel across the network matters, it seems like something could be wrong. The resulting churn is a leak in the system.
How do you patch the leak though? How big is it in relation to the entire system? IMO if it was big enough and there was a better solution, someone would come along with a patch, simply so they could replace the high frequency traders as the middleman.
Actually, I would say that is what happened when manual traders were replaced with computers. It will probably happen again down the road. Maybe Jacob will be the one to figure it out!
Sure, the ideal market would be 100% liquid with no middle men. Design and implement that system in a way that scales, and you'll probably be the richest person in the world.
I do suspect the allowed frequency of trades under the current market rules is too high. When even the time it takes for a trade to travel across the network matters, it seems like something could be wrong. The resulting churn is a leak in the system.
How do you patch the leak though? How big is it in relation to the entire system? IMO if it was big enough and there was a better solution, someone would come along with a patch, simply so they could replace the high frequency traders as the middleman.
Actually, I would say that is what happened when manual traders were replaced with computers. It will probably happen again down the road. Maybe Jacob will be the one to figure it out!
@Chad:
You may like this article by Douglas Rushkoff:
http://www.rushkoff.com/blog/2011/9/7/c ... olete.html
as well as his book Life Inc.
@Scott 2: The Pet Rock sold quite well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock
You may like this article by Douglas Rushkoff:
http://www.rushkoff.com/blog/2011/9/7/c ... olete.html
as well as his book Life Inc.
@Scott 2: The Pet Rock sold quite well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock
@Felix,
1. Of course I do realise we live in a quasi-brave-new-world. Therefore, in the context of constructing a mental model (or even proposing an alternative to status quo), it is important to keep in mind the people/Society's role in the loop as well! The push-pull from societal forces matter a lot.
2. "Computers are even better at being an emotionless homo oeconomicus than the psychopaths which are usually employed in these fields" -- I look at this whole debate we are now having with a broader context and lens than just the field of trading (Re-read my replies). I am not making a case for a floor trader, nor for a computerised trader in all this.... Taking the line of argument that efficiency is some sort of THE "holy grail" to strive for by all, is my main objection (for it has greater ramifications than just the immediate solution)
Other than these two points from me, I wholeheartedly agree with your points.
@teewonk,
> Is it possible to characterize these rules of thumb?
Well, in that case, then traders *ARE definitely* smart at one level. Either because of their internalising of the roles which only they can apply, or by deliberately withholding this info from being coded into a rule.
@Chad,
> I disagree, a little on your trader
> point (a lot on Surio's model)
Watch it, you are close to making a career out of disagreeing with whatever I write, whenever I write, all the time, on this forums.
Also, I am past caring to take the effort to explain it enough to make you understand it (and other people seem to have grasped the story arc and the overall clarity and trajectory of the idea). Like I said, the idea and the case is available in greater detail on the Net if you are interested in forming an informed opinion. Re-reading your original reply, it appears to me at least that you simply jumped the gun with a big list of "caveats" (*) despite my original reminder "And so on it goes. But you get the overall message".
(*) some of those caveats of yours I couldn't understand actually. :-/
@Felix,
> I don't know ... the pet rock exists, but is it necessary?
What did you mean here?
1. Of course I do realise we live in a quasi-brave-new-world. Therefore, in the context of constructing a mental model (or even proposing an alternative to status quo), it is important to keep in mind the people/Society's role in the loop as well! The push-pull from societal forces matter a lot.
2. "Computers are even better at being an emotionless homo oeconomicus than the psychopaths which are usually employed in these fields" -- I look at this whole debate we are now having with a broader context and lens than just the field of trading (Re-read my replies). I am not making a case for a floor trader, nor for a computerised trader in all this.... Taking the line of argument that efficiency is some sort of THE "holy grail" to strive for by all, is my main objection (for it has greater ramifications than just the immediate solution)
Other than these two points from me, I wholeheartedly agree with your points.
@teewonk,
> Is it possible to characterize these rules of thumb?
Well, in that case, then traders *ARE definitely* smart at one level. Either because of their internalising of the roles which only they can apply, or by deliberately withholding this info from being coded into a rule.
@Chad,
> I disagree, a little on your trader
> point (a lot on Surio's model)
Watch it, you are close to making a career out of disagreeing with whatever I write, whenever I write, all the time, on this forums.
Also, I am past caring to take the effort to explain it enough to make you understand it (and other people seem to have grasped the story arc and the overall clarity and trajectory of the idea). Like I said, the idea and the case is available in greater detail on the Net if you are interested in forming an informed opinion. Re-reading your original reply, it appears to me at least that you simply jumped the gun with a big list of "caveats" (*) despite my original reminder "And so on it goes. But you get the overall message".
(*) some of those caveats of yours I couldn't understand actually. :-/
@Felix,
> I don't know ... the pet rock exists, but is it necessary?
What did you mean here?
"I am not making a case for a floor trader, nor for a computerised trader in all this.... Taking the line of argument that efficiency is some sort of THE "holy grail" to strive for by all, is my main objection (for it has greater ramifications than just the immediate solution)"
I tend to agree that this is "the bigger picture". Much of the discussion above assumes that classical economics, with its stable and static equilibria, is a useful lens, which logically and mathematically leads to the "efficiency is always good" argument. The counter is that that type of model is just wrong-headed, because the world is actually full of dynamic systems where unstable equilibria are the norm.
Visualize the static standard economic model as a bowl where a marble dropped in comes to rest in the center after rolling around for a little bit. "Efficiency" seeks to get it to the center resting spot sooner rather than later. But the real world more resembles changing or warping bowls and surfaces where the marble never comes to rest for any significant length of time. In such cases, "efficiencies" may send the marble off the surface entirely, because it starts moving too fast. In this manner "efficient systems" are more brittle and more prone to crashes and other unforeseen "Black Swans". Add a little "leverage" to "efficiency" and you get 1929 or 2008.
This is the central theme of most of N. Taleb's writings, but is actually rooted in the mathematics of Benoit Mandelbrot. The economist line moves from Irving Fisher to Hyman Minsky and Charles Kindleberger to Steve Keen. Another perspective is brought through a biological or evolutionary models of markets -- see "Origins of Wealth" by Beinhocker.
Keen makes one of the most salient points in "Debunking Economics" -- most people who discuss economic issues don't really know what they are assuming, and much (more than you think) of neo-classical economics simply "goes away" without its predicates.
I tend to agree that this is "the bigger picture". Much of the discussion above assumes that classical economics, with its stable and static equilibria, is a useful lens, which logically and mathematically leads to the "efficiency is always good" argument. The counter is that that type of model is just wrong-headed, because the world is actually full of dynamic systems where unstable equilibria are the norm.
Visualize the static standard economic model as a bowl where a marble dropped in comes to rest in the center after rolling around for a little bit. "Efficiency" seeks to get it to the center resting spot sooner rather than later. But the real world more resembles changing or warping bowls and surfaces where the marble never comes to rest for any significant length of time. In such cases, "efficiencies" may send the marble off the surface entirely, because it starts moving too fast. In this manner "efficient systems" are more brittle and more prone to crashes and other unforeseen "Black Swans". Add a little "leverage" to "efficiency" and you get 1929 or 2008.
This is the central theme of most of N. Taleb's writings, but is actually rooted in the mathematics of Benoit Mandelbrot. The economist line moves from Irving Fisher to Hyman Minsky and Charles Kindleberger to Steve Keen. Another perspective is brought through a biological or evolutionary models of markets -- see "Origins of Wealth" by Beinhocker.
Keen makes one of the most salient points in "Debunking Economics" -- most people who discuss economic issues don't really know what they are assuming, and much (more than you think) of neo-classical economics simply "goes away" without its predicates.
@Surio: In general, I like efficiency because it reduces workload and increases free time. I think I agree with you on the "we focus too much on efficiency" point. I have a different focus here, though. I think our current society has turned productivity and goal-achievement into its new god. It's become a goal all by itself without being used to achieve anything in particular, the goal itself is not really important. Try to tell people that you like to spend your Sundays doing nothing. Someone may jump in and say that he, too has started taking meditation classes. Then you reply that no, in fact you do not meditate, you just lie there without any goal in mind and instead just waste hours looking at the ceiling and you will receive blank stares. 
<rant>
Everything you do needs to serve some form of goal-directed purpose and it needs to be optimized. I have yet to have someone explain to me why that is so. Usually you get something along the line of "Well, you need to make the most out of life." I tend to wonder why this means to maximize time spent doing productive things and "improve" all areas of my life all the time. I need to have more and more beautiful women and have more and more extravagant sex with them, I need to make more and more money, get a bigger car, a bigger house, I need to learn more, get more degrees, learn more languages, become more fit, run longer distances in a shorter time, add more facebook friends, eat more protein, no wait, carbs, no wait, saturated fat, no, wait I need to fast more, and of course I need to work longer hours, start a business on the side, get a better phone and have better haircuts and wear better clothes and go to better clubs and take better vacations all the while being more relaxed and in balance, probably by - after adding 24 hours of additional activities per day - just adding 10 additional hours of meditation to get measurable changes in my brain to indicate my relaxation on my facebook profile in a nice graph. After all, I need to express my individuality and be my "awesome" self in the right way, that is, in the way dictated by social customs and advertising.
</rant>
Why not just count the grass in your lawn? You can count all day and if you make a mistake, you just start over again or just turn around and lie in the sun. And then you go home, eat some oatmeal and go to sleep. This seems much more fulfilling at times, but all that wasted potential ... There seems to be a general fear of unproductiveness or idleness. It's somehow not allowed. I think that this is simply a taboo on being content.
http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/img/strip/ ... -04-15.gif
<rant>
Everything you do needs to serve some form of goal-directed purpose and it needs to be optimized. I have yet to have someone explain to me why that is so. Usually you get something along the line of "Well, you need to make the most out of life." I tend to wonder why this means to maximize time spent doing productive things and "improve" all areas of my life all the time. I need to have more and more beautiful women and have more and more extravagant sex with them, I need to make more and more money, get a bigger car, a bigger house, I need to learn more, get more degrees, learn more languages, become more fit, run longer distances in a shorter time, add more facebook friends, eat more protein, no wait, carbs, no wait, saturated fat, no, wait I need to fast more, and of course I need to work longer hours, start a business on the side, get a better phone and have better haircuts and wear better clothes and go to better clubs and take better vacations all the while being more relaxed and in balance, probably by - after adding 24 hours of additional activities per day - just adding 10 additional hours of meditation to get measurable changes in my brain to indicate my relaxation on my facebook profile in a nice graph. After all, I need to express my individuality and be my "awesome" self in the right way, that is, in the way dictated by social customs and advertising.
</rant>
Why not just count the grass in your lawn? You can count all day and if you make a mistake, you just start over again or just turn around and lie in the sun. And then you go home, eat some oatmeal and go to sleep. This seems much more fulfilling at times, but all that wasted potential ... There seems to be a general fear of unproductiveness or idleness. It's somehow not allowed. I think that this is simply a taboo on being content.
http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/img/strip/ ... -04-15.gif
Well, since the thread is officially hijacked...
At heart this is a question of whether increasing efficiency is moral or not. Every tool by definition increases efficiency in some respect. So then the question becomes: what level of efficiency is too much?
After all, using a shovel puts hand-diggers out of business. Taking a train puts horse-drawn wagons out of business.
Simply put, I think that the overall gains of further automation still outweigh the costs that they incur.
There's some point on the continuum where yes, people will be 'phased out' completely. But I don't think we're there, and I wonder whether we'll ever reach that point, given the resources available. Overall I consider efficiency moral as I like having high-quality goods available at remarkably low costs; I also like living a longer and more exciting life. I don't really feel sorry for traders who are no longer employed, etc. There are so many jobs that are literally make-work... crossing guards are my favorite, the job is already automated in the form of a traffic light. These jobs benefit no one... the employer is paying someone to do a job that could be done more easily and better by a robot, and the employee is forced to do a highly automatic job that's brutally soul-crushing.
So either pay people to do nothing, which would be better for everyone involved, or train them to do something more interesting and less soul-crushing, or don't pay them at all. Personally I kinda like the first option, although there are obvious problems.
At heart this is a question of whether increasing efficiency is moral or not. Every tool by definition increases efficiency in some respect. So then the question becomes: what level of efficiency is too much?
After all, using a shovel puts hand-diggers out of business. Taking a train puts horse-drawn wagons out of business.
Simply put, I think that the overall gains of further automation still outweigh the costs that they incur.
There's some point on the continuum where yes, people will be 'phased out' completely. But I don't think we're there, and I wonder whether we'll ever reach that point, given the resources available. Overall I consider efficiency moral as I like having high-quality goods available at remarkably low costs; I also like living a longer and more exciting life. I don't really feel sorry for traders who are no longer employed, etc. There are so many jobs that are literally make-work... crossing guards are my favorite, the job is already automated in the form of a traffic light. These jobs benefit no one... the employer is paying someone to do a job that could be done more easily and better by a robot, and the employee is forced to do a highly automatic job that's brutally soul-crushing.
So either pay people to do nothing, which would be better for everyone involved, or train them to do something more interesting and less soul-crushing, or don't pay them at all. Personally I kinda like the first option, although there are obvious problems.
"At heart this is a question of whether increasing efficiency is moral or not."
No, I would not agree with that phrasing of the issue -- I think it assumes away the real problems, but perhaps that's not what you meant given the continuum reference in the next paragraph.
This is not an on-off switch. It's a rheostat and the conditions in the room keep changing. The question is how much and when, not yes or no. And how much leverage or power to apply.
And there is nothing "moral" or "amoral" about it -- any more than there is morality in a hammer or any other tool. It's how it is used and what results that are achieved that is ultimately what is important. You do not keep banging a nail that has been driven in or put more nails in than necessary. Or use it on screws or to cut wood.
But to a man (economist) with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail (improve efficiency and everything HAS to get better, because it always works with rational all-knowing actors in static systems with stable equilibria). That's why its important to analyze things involving humans not just as economic problems, but from multiple disciplines including psychology, sociology, anthropology and any others you might care to list that might be relevant to the human behavior at issue.
I don't think you end up with one convenient answer that fits all problems of this nature. Sometimes it might be better to pay people, sometimes train them and sometimes just don't pay. But note those are all "static model" on/off solutions. Maybe because you are in a dynamic system, you set certain rules to protect the current employees but do away with the position after a certain amount of time. That type of solutions often takes care of a number of economically irrational human factors, although is usually not the most efficient.
No, I would not agree with that phrasing of the issue -- I think it assumes away the real problems, but perhaps that's not what you meant given the continuum reference in the next paragraph.
This is not an on-off switch. It's a rheostat and the conditions in the room keep changing. The question is how much and when, not yes or no. And how much leverage or power to apply.
And there is nothing "moral" or "amoral" about it -- any more than there is morality in a hammer or any other tool. It's how it is used and what results that are achieved that is ultimately what is important. You do not keep banging a nail that has been driven in or put more nails in than necessary. Or use it on screws or to cut wood.
But to a man (economist) with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail (improve efficiency and everything HAS to get better, because it always works with rational all-knowing actors in static systems with stable equilibria). That's why its important to analyze things involving humans not just as economic problems, but from multiple disciplines including psychology, sociology, anthropology and any others you might care to list that might be relevant to the human behavior at issue.
I don't think you end up with one convenient answer that fits all problems of this nature. Sometimes it might be better to pay people, sometimes train them and sometimes just don't pay. But note those are all "static model" on/off solutions. Maybe because you are in a dynamic system, you set certain rules to protect the current employees but do away with the position after a certain amount of time. That type of solutions often takes care of a number of economically irrational human factors, although is usually not the most efficient.
Actually I'm approaching this with an engineering perspective, not an economics perspective. I have no illusions about people being rational (they're clearly not). But I enjoy seeing things operate efficiently. That's pleasing to me, whether it's an athlete operating her body efficiently, an algorithm executing efficiently, or a team of people performing a task efficiently.
I'm not even saying things have to get objectively better if they're more efficient. But seeing inefficiency being purposely substituted for attainable efficiency, where the only variable that changes is operating speed and reliability, is jarring to me.
Anyway I do think we basically agree on the framing... I was suggesting there was some continuum of possible efficiency for a given environment, and there's some point on that continuum where our opinions of whether efficiency is desirable diverge.
Would be interested to hear from Jacob as this is, after all, his journal.
I'm not even saying things have to get objectively better if they're more efficient. But seeing inefficiency being purposely substituted for attainable efficiency, where the only variable that changes is operating speed and reliability, is jarring to me.
Anyway I do think we basically agree on the framing... I was suggesting there was some continuum of possible efficiency for a given environment, and there's some point on that continuum where our opinions of whether efficiency is desirable diverge.
Would be interested to hear from Jacob as this is, after all, his journal.
Jacob can move these posts to another thread if he feels like it. Maybe "Discussion about Jacob's Journal".
@Felix
> "Everything you do needs to serve some form of goal-directed purpose"
This is built into my personality, and it serves to increase anxiety. I have to take a step back and realize that putting a lot of effort into making things more efficient isn't very efficient.
> "Why not just count the grass in your lawn? .... And then go home,"
Get off my lawn!
@m741
> "So then the question becomes: what level of efficiency is too much?"
I'd say anything that takes more than 24 hours/week to accomplish. No need to waste your life making things more efficient. My life is efficient enough already because I reduced my needs.
@Felix
> "Everything you do needs to serve some form of goal-directed purpose"
This is built into my personality, and it serves to increase anxiety. I have to take a step back and realize that putting a lot of effort into making things more efficient isn't very efficient.
> "Why not just count the grass in your lawn? .... And then go home,"
Get off my lawn!
@m741
> "So then the question becomes: what level of efficiency is too much?"
I'd say anything that takes more than 24 hours/week to accomplish. No need to waste your life making things more efficient. My life is efficient enough already because I reduced my needs.
As the first person that set the cat among the pigeons, I say, we haven't really hijacked the thread (not by much) really.
My original objection (crib?) with Jacob, was indeed about the excessive focus on the "Go efficient, young man!" exhortation in his OP, and the responses from others has pretty much stayed on topic since. If Jacob wants to move it, that's fine, but I don't think this is a hijack. We are still discussing his POV from others'.
@Dragline,
Thanks for taking the argument forward and teasing more points, and fielding questions on "framing of the point" in a super cogent way. Good call on pointing to Steve Keen too.
@Chad,
No worries. *shakes hands*
@teewonk,
Everyone suffers from that phobia that Felix uncannily pointed out.
@m741,
"At heart this is a question of whether increasing efficiency is moral or not"
I agree with Dragline's reply to that point. Then I thought about it a little. So let me leave you with those thoughts on the question.
Deep sea trawl fishing is probably the most efficient way to catch fish, but if you spend enough time on the subject beyond the "efficiency" aspect, you can find the adverse effects of the process through
a) depletion of fishing stocks,
b) other deep sea fishes caught in the nets,
c) ecological (coral reefs, etc.) destruction,
d) devastation of coastal communities in developing-
countries where these trawlers illegally operate,
e) fuel subsidies up to $50 mil/year to prop up the industry
and so on.
Whether so much collateral damage done in the name of being efficient in order to ship cheap canned fish to big supermarkets for consumers in a few countries is a moral thing or not, I leave it to you.
@m741,
"Actually I'm approaching this with an engineering perspective,"
Actually, I would say that I am also looking at it from an engineering perspective, only it is a Systems engineering perspective. We engineers would be naturally good at systems approach. We are all culturally primed into wearing some kind of "autistic horse blinds" like some badge of honour. High time we rejected it and be more holistic in our approach.
@Felix,
Your rant induced an uncontrollable burst of laughter from me, which amused the wife to no end. Thanks for making two people happy in one go.
But it was all true :-\
Yes, that Rushkoff article was indeed well articulated. I think I also fall in that camp in my thinking. But, in this context I also want to place these old (and offensive to some maybe?) jokes that I heard some 15 years or so ago.
One day, a reporter found an American, a Russian, a Chinese, and an Israeli together.
"Excuse me?" The reporter asked. "What is your opinion of the meat shortage?"
The American asked, "What's a shortage?"
The Russian asked, "What's meat?"
The Chinese asked, "What's an opinion?"
The Israeli asked, "What's excuse me?"
This is the other one:
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a huge failure...
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
Just like the thread of those jokes above, 'scarcity' takes on a different meaning in different parts of the World. It is a Human construct in some countries, whereas it is a reality and fact of life to many others.
In other words, Scarcity is real and present thing in many places around the World. At least where I am writing this from (maybe bigato's place too?).
Just one example from one State
=-=-=-=-=
And before I press "send", Cheers Felix!. I thought my opinion of humanity couldn't sink any lower. Your "Pet rock" link just made it sink lower!
My original objection (crib?) with Jacob, was indeed about the excessive focus on the "Go efficient, young man!" exhortation in his OP, and the responses from others has pretty much stayed on topic since. If Jacob wants to move it, that's fine, but I don't think this is a hijack. We are still discussing his POV from others'.
@Dragline,
Thanks for taking the argument forward and teasing more points, and fielding questions on "framing of the point" in a super cogent way. Good call on pointing to Steve Keen too.
@Chad,
No worries. *shakes hands*
@teewonk,
Everyone suffers from that phobia that Felix uncannily pointed out.
@m741,
"At heart this is a question of whether increasing efficiency is moral or not"
I agree with Dragline's reply to that point. Then I thought about it a little. So let me leave you with those thoughts on the question.
Deep sea trawl fishing is probably the most efficient way to catch fish, but if you spend enough time on the subject beyond the "efficiency" aspect, you can find the adverse effects of the process through
a) depletion of fishing stocks,
b) other deep sea fishes caught in the nets,
c) ecological (coral reefs, etc.) destruction,
d) devastation of coastal communities in developing-
countries where these trawlers illegally operate,
e) fuel subsidies up to $50 mil/year to prop up the industry
and so on.
Whether so much collateral damage done in the name of being efficient in order to ship cheap canned fish to big supermarkets for consumers in a few countries is a moral thing or not, I leave it to you.
@m741,
"Actually I'm approaching this with an engineering perspective,"
Actually, I would say that I am also looking at it from an engineering perspective, only it is a Systems engineering perspective. We engineers would be naturally good at systems approach. We are all culturally primed into wearing some kind of "autistic horse blinds" like some badge of honour. High time we rejected it and be more holistic in our approach.
@Felix,
Your rant induced an uncontrollable burst of laughter from me, which amused the wife to no end. Thanks for making two people happy in one go.
But it was all true :-\Yes, that Rushkoff article was indeed well articulated. I think I also fall in that camp in my thinking. But, in this context I also want to place these old (and offensive to some maybe?) jokes that I heard some 15 years or so ago.
One day, a reporter found an American, a Russian, a Chinese, and an Israeli together.
"Excuse me?" The reporter asked. "What is your opinion of the meat shortage?"
The American asked, "What's a shortage?"
The Russian asked, "What's meat?"
The Chinese asked, "What's an opinion?"
The Israeli asked, "What's excuse me?"
This is the other one:
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a huge failure...
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
Just like the thread of those jokes above, 'scarcity' takes on a different meaning in different parts of the World. It is a Human construct in some countries, whereas it is a reality and fact of life to many others.
In other words, Scarcity is real and present thing in many places around the World. At least where I am writing this from (maybe bigato's place too?).
Just one example from one State
=-=-=-=-=
And before I press "send", Cheers Felix!. I thought my opinion of humanity couldn't sink any lower. Your "Pet rock" link just made it sink lower!
@Surio
We are almost always opposing views because we come at these topics with the same goals, but somewhat opposing solutions.
I like the first joke a lot. The second one is good too, but that U.S. stereotype isn't quite as apt as the one in the first joke. I think we get a slightly bad rap for that one, especially from Europeans.
We are almost always opposing views because we come at these topics with the same goals, but somewhat opposing solutions.
I like the first joke a lot. The second one is good too, but that U.S. stereotype isn't quite as apt as the one in the first joke. I think we get a slightly bad rap for that one, especially from Europeans.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16007
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Optimists only see green lights. Pessimists only see red lights. A wise person only sees lights. Of course this has nothing to do with optimism, pessimism or traffic lights.
I suspect that realizing and subsequently fully internalizing that life has nothing to do with "lights" leads to enlightenment.
PS: If you just like traffic lights, you're probably in the clear though. If not, maybe getting hit with a stick helps...
PPS: I can't move posts between threads. I'm eventually going to close this thread and start a new journal. If anyone has any final words, speak quickly.
I suspect that realizing and subsequently fully internalizing that life has nothing to do with "lights" leads to enlightenment.
PS: If you just like traffic lights, you're probably in the clear though. If not, maybe getting hit with a stick helps...
PPS: I can't move posts between threads. I'm eventually going to close this thread and start a new journal. If anyone has any final words, speak quickly.