4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9437
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

It has been my experience that there are a lot of people who are willing to entertain, or even build, some variation on "sustainable cabin in the woods", as their "vacation house/lifestyle" while still maintaining their "modern home in the "reality" that is the cave." Retrofitting their current lifestyle towards being more like "sustainable cabin in the woods" is less appealing and/or generally perceived to be worse option than "the modern home" or "the vacation home."

I am currently reading "Strategic Management of Technological Innovation" by Melissa Schilling, who also wrote "Quirky: The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles, and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World." One case study she offers in the textbook seems to be quite relevant to the mass marketing of eco-ERE lifestyle. An old Indian company which manufactured household goods such as air conditioners and refrigerators was being competed out of the general market. So, it came up with the idea to manufacture a very, small efficient refrigerator for the poor, rural market in India, where refrigeration had not yet been widely adopted. Along the way, they discovered that many of their initial thoughts about potential design for the refrigerator and needs/desires of this niche market were mistaken:

Based on these insights, the company designed a small and portable refrigerator based on thermoelectric cooling (rather than compressor technology). Thermoelectric cooling was the cooling method used in laptops; it involved running a current between two semiconductors. It was far more expensive on a per-unit-of-cooling basis, but it had much lower power requirements and could be used on a much smaller scale than compressor cooling. This enabled Godrej to make a very small, lightweight refrigerator with a relatively low price (35–40 percent cheaper than traditional refrigerators). It also lowered the power costs of operating a refrigerator, and made the refrigerator able to operate for several hours on a 12-volt battery, making it much more adaptable to situations where power was unreliable.

In Godrej’s initial plan for the chotuKool, the refrigerators would be cherry red and look like coolers. Soon, however, managers at chotuKool realized that if the refrigerators were just perceived as inexpensive alternatives to refrigerators, they had the potential to be stigmatizing for consumers who, in turn, would not talk about them to their friends. This was a serious problem because the company had counted on word of mouth to spread information about the refrigerators deep into rural communities. To get people to talk about the coolers they needed to be aspirational—they needed to be cool.

Godrej decided to revamp the design of the coolers, giving them a more sophisticated shape and making them customizable (buyers could choose from over 100 decorative skin colors for the chotuKool).c They also decided to market the refrigerators to the urban affluent market in addition to the rural market, as adoption by the urban affluent market would remove any stigma associated with buying them. To attract this market they positioned the refrigerators as perfect for picnics, parties, offices, dorm rooms, use in cars, and so on.

To get the chotuKool to rural customers would require a dramatically different distribution system than Godrej had traditionally used. However, building out a distribution system into rural communities would prohibitively raise the cost of chotuKool, potentially rendering the product nonviable. The development team was initially stumped. Then one day G. Sunderraman, vice president of Godrej and leader of the chotuKool project, happened to inquire with a university official about obtaining college application forms for his youngest son and the official pointed out that Sunderraman could get the forms at any post office. At that moment, Sunderraman realized that the post office, which had offices in every rural area of India, could be an ideal distribution channel for the chotuKool.d It was a very novel proposition, but India Post agreed to the collaboration and soon chotuKools were available in all post offices in the central region of India.e As Sunderraman noted, “The India Post network is very well spread in India and is about three or four times larger than the best logistic suppliers.”f

The chotuKool won several design awards in its first years, and after selling 100,000 units in its second year Fast Company gave Godrej its “Most Innovative Company” award. Godrej and Sunderraman were disappointed to discover that it was not as rapidly adopted by rural poor households as they had hoped; the roughly $50 price was still too expensive for most poor rural families in India. However, the chotuKool turned out to be much more popular than anticipated among hotels, food stalls, flower shops, and other small stores because it enabled these small stores to offer higher valued products (such as cold drinks) or to keep products fresh longer, thereby increasing their profits. The chotuKool also became a popular lifestyle product among the urban affluent population who began to widely use them in their cars.

Godrej’s experience developing and launching the chotuKool had provided many lessons. They had learned that to radically reduce the cost of a product might require completely rethinking the technology—sometimes even in ways that initially seemed more expensive. They learned that customers who had adapted their way of life to the lack of a technology (like refrigeration) might not adopt that technology even if it was made markedly less expensive. Finally, they learned not to underestimate the value of making a product work for multiple market segments, including those that might not be initially obvious as customers. Though some people considered chotuKool a failure because it had not achieved its original objective of wide adoption by the rural poor, Godrej (and many others) considered it a success: the product expanded Godrej’s market share, penetrated new market segments in which Godrej had not formerly competed, and demonstrated Godrej’s innovative capabilities to the world.
- emphasis mine.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by Riggerjack »

@jacob,
do you see how most people resist almost all change because they need to fit it within the framework of their current system which is usually some variation of "need to pay the bills, spouse not interested, don't want to look weird, the children still deserves a normal life, need to do it as a community, happy to follow but not to lead,... right down to ideological concerns and refusing to move before some pet peeve is solved first"?
The reason we aren't yet talking about the transition, is that I'm trying to get you to understand the "to" space. Reread what you wrote there.

What relationship is in your mind when you describe the above? You describe people as stubborn and uncommitted. People who are unwilling to lead or be lead.

You have been playing in Deep Adaptation space, so I'm sure you have good reason for your views. I don't disagree with you.

The vast majority of any population have found a niche, and are developing that niche to the best of their abilities, all the while complaining about their niche, and dreaming about better niches out there, "somewhere". Prying them out of their niche is wasted energy. I wouldn't advise it.

Upthread I posted about herding cats. Which method are you using? Does the second video show any footage of overcoming stubbornness?



ERE1 as you have practiced it, results in a lifestyle of freedom, that from the outside looks like a typical middle class lifestyle. Thus all the confusion in the Wheaton levels thread. WL6+ looks like work, and the reward is unclear. The work and payoff is much clearer at lower levels.

ERE1 is about adapting to one's environment, independent of that environment. This is a feature of ERE1. It is a bug in ERE2. Adapting in place both limits the scope of adaptation, and raises the cost of moving. Thus, the ERE city thread. With an adaptable strategy, the venue matters less.

If history shows us anything, it's that people migrate to places where they believe they can thrive. And leave places where they don't. Where freedom of movement exists, it really is this simple.

For a period of time, many, if not most, lives are in an explorer mode. Looking for the right job/city/mate. Looking for where to put down roots.

If one has an attractive option for these people, some may choose it.

If you are trying to herd people, it is because those people don't find the destination as appealing as you do. If they did find the destination as appealing as you do, you would have different problems. Human herding problems become human filtering problems. Filtering problems require far less energy and ingenuity to deal with.

So as you inevitably compare what I'm saying to examples you know IRL, ask yourself about how those examples were created.

For example, Dancing Rabbit is about as successful as intentional communities can hope to achieve. They started with someone spending their inheritance on land in the middle of nowhere to go be all they could be, with all their friends. They sold off the agricultural rights as a conservation easement, cutting themselves off from many traditional rural forms of economic advancement. Honestly, they just cut themselves off from as much of the economic system as they could. And they reveled in their freedom, you know, 'til winter.

That is a very selective vision of thrive. That's selecting for people attracted to freedom/chaos, and indifferent to economic opportunity. Then trimming out those who don't conform to "community" standards.

The people attracted/tolerant to that environment, are unlikely to have other high quality options. They are unlikely to attract other, higher quality people, or more opportunities.

Eventually, all the original members are gone. All that's left are those they selected for, edited down to those who could tolerate each other.

Seen in that light, it's amazing they have lasted this long.

But I'm not interested in anything of that sort. Free Land and Free Love are rarely worth the price, let alone the work.

....

Maybe you could get me some feedback on RJTP I-III. What did you get out of it?

.....

@7

YES! Yes, to all of that!
It has been my experience that there are a lot of people who are willing to entertain, or even build, some variation on "sustainable cabin in the woods", as their "vacation house/lifestyle" while still maintaining their "modern home in the "reality" that is the cave." Retrofitting their current lifestyle towards being more like "sustainable cabin in the woods" is less appealing and/or generally perceived to be worse option than "the modern home" or "the vacation home."
And if one were interested in such a property, would better water treatment be more, or less appealing?

If one were in the daydreaming stage of shopping for such a place, at what point does better waste treatment enter the daydream? I would expect this only after someone relatable and admirable gets such a place. (Girard's mimetic themes)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9437
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:If one were in the daydreaming stage of shopping for such a place, at what point does better waste treatment enter the daydream? I would expect this only after someone relatable and admirable gets such a place. (Girard's mimetic themes)
Well, I'm not your average consumer, but I still think that this is aiming too much at "adults who socially function at the level of junior high girls." Counter-example; I am always in the market for new books to read. One of the many methods I employ to add new books to my "shopping" list is checking out the NYT yearly new and notable lists. However, I don't do this because I want to read the same books that the top 2% of the reading population reads. I do it because it has been my experience that this list is a fairly good filter for quality, roughly analagous to how I might check out Consumer Reports before shopping for an appliance. So, by analogy, if "such a place" was featured and recommended on a website run by a permaculturalist I admire, then I would assume that "waste treatment" was definitely a factor already considered.

My main takeaway from the article I posted above was actually how the combination of "sophisticated design" and "ability to customize" made a product creatively designed to use alternative technology towards greater sustainability and resilience (due to portability and 12V possibility, etc.) more upscale marketable. One of the best things about "ERE" the book is that it is in theory extremely lifestyle customizable and capable of taking on any number of sophisticated designs. However, most humans don't really want to think that hard. They want examples of options that they can "see" and step by step instructions for how to achieve the "sustainable lifestyle option" they would prefer. Or, as I think you are suggesting, they want to be able to buy one already constructed off-the-shelf.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15993
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by jacob »

Riggerjack wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 6:21 pm
Maybe you could get me some feedback on RJTP I-III. What did you get out of it?
TBH, not much.

I deleted my earlier reply because my frustration got the better of me. Sorry about that.

The "informational core dump"-style of writing (or podcasting) doesn't work very well for me because internally I mostly think in diagrams of relations. In order to think about some input, I must first translate words and factoids and match them to the relevant relations, then think about those relations, which generally happens without using words (no inner voice), and then ultimately translate these thoughts into words as output if I want to communicate back.

With that kind of internal wiring, the thinking is easy, but the translation is hard and consumes most of the mental energy.

As such I prefer the input to have some structure explaining where it is going and why including a particular factoid is relevant. Metaphorically, it's a lot easier for me to figure out what kind of building someone is talking about if the framing is described upfront as well as some idea of how the final building is going to be used. Listening to 10000 word description of the various types of construction material on the site tells me nothing about the building.

In short, a long list of factoids or "conceptoids" is pretty much wasted on me. They cost energy. I don't enjoy them for their own sake. To put it in other words. You know how some people enjoy long-form articles like slatestarcodex, listening to podcast interviews, spending 4 hours getting lost in wikipedia, and reading all the footnotes in all the books. I'm the opposite of that :-)

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by Riggerjack »

TBH, not much.
Well that's disappointing.

In my own mind, I laid out the basic science of waste processing. Then I showed how we use that science.

I used lots of references, so you could follow along. References written by my culture, so my description wouldn't overly color your perception.

I then followed up with how the same processes we use, and the same technology we already possess can be recombined.

That processing wastewater more effectively, reusing our wastewater, is just not that hard a nut to crack. We already know how to do each step.

That gathering methane out of the pipe that is already generating methane, is not that hard a nut to crack. And once we do, it can be expanded with biowaste.

That once we start collecting our biomass at the source, we have an easy to implement hack for starting atmospheric remediation

I thought all this was clear. That was the whole reason for writing it out. But nobody seems to have gotten it. I'm not sure anyone even read it.

So how do I make it clearer?

....

When I started this thread, I assumed we would be on a group call, or some other form of more synchronous communication by now. But then the ERE2 kerfuffle happened.

Maybe we could try something higher bandwidth? What was the ruling on that? I don't want to darknet ERE but we've been at this for months.

And this doesn't seem to be working.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9437
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Riggerjack;

If I accurately grok where your head is at, I think the book "Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warning" by the practical-optimist Paul Hawken might be your cup of tea. Here is the link to the associated community:

https://drawdown.org/

The difference between the problem and the meta-problem is that those concerned with the meta-problem recognize that practical solutions or solution sets exist, but also recognize that there is not enough will to implement them and/or it is probably already too late. For instance, mass adoption of ERE1 (affluent folk lowering their consumption/spending towards approximately $8000/year) is a solution, and it is also a growing trend. However, as can be observed on this forum, even those of us who see the value of this solution and are striving towards this goal may encounter some difficulties along the way. And, it is also readily apparent that the members of this forum (or even MMM) do not represent a diverse sub-set of the general population. So, the question I was puzzling through a bit with my chotukool example was how can the Level Orange skill-set of "marketing" be applied to the wider-spread adoption of "frugality" a la "ERE." This is obviously a bit of a conundrum!

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15993
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by jacob »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:14 pm
I thought all this was clear. That was the whole reason for writing it out. But nobody seems to have gotten it. I'm not sure anyone even read it.
I think by the title people were expecting RJTP I-III (nearly 10000 words or about 40 minutes of standard reading time) to be setting the stage for a discussion about the deeper human issues and perspectives that prevent change in complex systems. Even after the title was revealed as a joke, I still didn't expect this was literally but a technical proposal for waste management solutions.

Alright then. There are known easy technical solutions for very many of society's ills. Solutions that have been known for decades: Traffic deaths, gun violence, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, pandemics,... and that's just on top of my head. There's even a simple solution for not getting into debt. The problem in implementing them at scale is that people either don't care or disagree or that these solutions will cause other unknown problems elsewhere. Indeed, it is often "someone's job" to prevent new solutions from being attempted.

The problem is not a lack of bandwidth as much as it is priority, attention, and entrenched opposition whether personal, societal, or cultural. By all means, keep proposing solutions. It's the only way to ensure they still exist once humans finally agree (with themselves and/or others) to implement them.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by Riggerjack »

The difference between the problem and the meta-problem is that those concerned with the meta-problem recognize that practical solutions or solution sets exist, but also recognize that there is not enough will to implement them and/or it is probably already too late.
What relationship is in your mind when you describe the above?
If you are trying to herd people, it is because those people don't find the destination as appealing as you do. If they did find the destination as appealing as you do, you would have different problems. Human herding problems become human filtering problems. Filtering problems require far less energy and ingenuity to deal with.
I only skimmed your link. But it reeked of administrative bias. I don't intend to tell anyone what to do, or how to do it. I have no interest in overcoming any form of resistance, not even simple reluctance.

I don't know what to do, I don't have any answers.

I believe I know of several processes that will generate some answers, and I understand how to start and fund those processes.

I'm not focused on fixing things that are broken. I'm focused on creating new options that make the broken bits less relevant. So I focus on what works, what else could work, and how those categories could be recombined to better effect.

That's what I was trying to show in RJTP I-III. How the stuff we already know can be recombined to better effect.

"Better effects" have market value. People will choose them on their merits, at time and circumstances of their own choosing. We already know how to distribute better effects.

....

ERE suffers from outsiders trying to envision what their lives would be like on 7k/yr. Because they associate quality of life with dollars consumed, the math is clear, and ERE must suck. Read the comments.

Low energy consumption suffers the same problem. People associate their quality of life with energy consumed. The examples available to them of low energy consumption look unattractive.

The only way to push an unattractive option is herding/administering/regulating. And that sucks for everyone, though it sucks less for the herders than the herded. I imagine that has something to do with all the activists lining up to herd the masses...

I am trying to describe the creation of new options. Options that will appeal to some folks, but certainly not all.

Those people, exercising those options, will demonstrate the value of those options in ways that most people can and will process. If the appeal spreads, so will the competition.

Exactly the same way that Tesla started with a hobby car built from a Lotus, and just over 2 decades later, we have electric F-150's.

Nobody forced anyone to go electric. Nobody forced Ford to electrify the F-150. People recognized "better effects" and chose them, at their own pace. No herding necessary.

....

I can't believe I am still talking about poo. It's such a little thing.

Maybe if I try a much smaller context, that would help.

If you think of RJTP as "Waste disposal, a better septic system to completely close the sewage loop. Full processing on site. This will last as long as the pipes do." fleshed out a bit, from this 5 year old post, it would help?
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn but we, generally speaking are lacking in important skills in the whole socialization department. IllinDave's response pretty much sums up the INTx crowd.

Yeah. This was tough. Then I realized I don't have to solve this problem. I only need other, smarter people to solve it. This is the beauty of the internet, that smarter people are out there, and they will solve this on their own, if I can get them to start thinking about it, and provide a platform for experimentation.

That's why I have to demonstrate, rather than describe.

I don't have to make anything perfect, I need to create something to gather enough interest that others will follow, and show me up.

What humans do, we do competitively. Where humans compete, we improve. It's not just that this is a difficult problem, I believe. It's too big a problem for any brain to work out a significant fraction of the solution. So I need to start people competing on this line of thought, and the best way to do this is to show that it is profitable.

Then, it gets cheaper and easier. Thanks, markets!

I believe I have worked out:

Home deterioration, no cleaning gutters, painting, residing, blah blah. I don't know how long the roof will last, but I'm hoping for a century. Exterior home maintenance, including washing windows and annual system maintenance should be less than 2 days a year.

Food production, with room to spare for CC. No, I don't think a standard garden cuts it, at all. I want to grow oranges at the 49th parallel. They suck at grocery stores. I want fresh veggies all winter. Existing greenhouse tech will handle this.

Electricity, for decades after the grid goes down, and ongoing on a more limited basis. This is merely a capital problem.

Waste disposal, a better septic system to completely close the sewage loop. Full processing on site. This will last as long as the pipes do. I haven't tried to push this past the health department, yet.

Earthquake. I am going to build it close to a fault, so we could get a good test relatively soon.

Wildfire, this is just capital and existing tech. Smoke filtration is still a challenge. Interior fires are a challenge, because it is hard to plan for what occupants will bring into a house. But I am hoping for a 90% structure survival rate for interior fires. Yes, a remodel will still be in order after a fire. I have options in mind if someone wants to put extra capital into interior fire prevention.

Wind and rain. I expect it to stand up to minor hurricanes and tornado forces (in closed up mode), but when wind picks up trees, that's hard to plan for. I still think I could do it, but it's not in the budget for the prototype.

At this point, I worry about little details like how long until oxidation causes compromise, and how to monitor that.

And because I am an INTJ, I have been trying to find failure points for the design for years. I'm currently in the 5th design.

The proof of concept of the new model is will be a shop I build. I want it to be unheated, yet not freeze here up near the 49th parallel. I will use a Web energy logger to measure the right amount of Geo HP to use when I build the prototype. Should be done around 2021-22.

The current plan is to Kickstarter the prototype for the publicity. Then gather up potential customers and partners from there. 2024-6

With enough money and brains, the market will solve the expense issue. I look forward to my prototype looking as simple and backwards as the earliest cars do today.

Then I will use those profits to open the platform for people to experiment with community design, as I have no talent there. But I think I have worked out how to work the experimentation.

I am personally just working out the easy technical details. I will leave the hard parts to smarter people.
That's how I was thinking back when I was focused on the simple, physical layer.

Since, my mind has gone to implications of the above.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by Riggerjack »

Solutions that have been known for decades: Traffic deaths, gun violence, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, pandemics,... and that's just on top of my head. There's even a simple solution for not getting into debt. The problem in implementing them at scale is that people either don't care or disagree or that these solutions will cause other unknown problems elsewhere. Indeed, it is often "someone's job" to prevent new solutions from being attempted.
I propose that solutions that have been known for decades but aren't implemented, decades after being generally known, simply are not solutions.

Concentrating one's thoughts on forcing compliance to "solutions" that people would not choose for themselves is the essence of wicked problems.

When is a different approach appropriate?

Western Red Cedar
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by Western Red Cedar »

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been working on improved sanitation and alternatives to traditional, industrialized waste treatment technology in developing countries for over a decade.
Accelerating the development of safe, non-sewered sanitation systems and technologies is our top priority within the water, sanitation, and hygiene continuum because it is where we believe we can catalyze the biggest change by making investments that other partners are unlikely to make. We acknowledge the critical role of clean water and hygiene initiatives, as well as efforts to end open defecation, in improving global health outcomes. We applaud the efforts of other organizations that focus on these areas.
Flush toilets and central sewer systems are considered by many consumers and governments around the world to be the gold standard for safe sanitation. However, decentralized sanitation systems that incorporate technologies such as the reinvented toilet present alternatives that can be safer and more resilient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly.

Since 2011, our foundation’s Reinvent the Toilet Challenge has worked with leading engineers and scientists to design low-cost toilets that do not require connections to the electrical grid, water supply, or sewers. Several designs that debuted at the Reinvented Toilet Expo in 2018 are now commercially available. These toilets work using internal combustion and chemical treatment systems, and they can be set up in areas that are hard to reach with traditional infrastructure. They can deliver the same benefits as toilets connected to sewers, plus wholly new benefits that include the removal of human pathogens and generation of usable water and electricity. Some reinvented toilet models provide sanitation for single homes, while others are designed for public or shared toilet facilities that serve communities.

We have also supported the development of new fecal sludge treatment technologies and funded new types of pit latrine emptying solutions so communities can make existing sanitation systems safer for people and more affordable for private companies, public utilities, and municipalities.

Getting new sanitation products to market and into communities where they can save lives and protect community health will require the leadership of private companies that are excited about building new businesses in the sanitation sector—to manufacture, deliver, and service the reinvented toilet. It is also critical for national and local governments to create policies and regulations that encourage inclusive, innovative sanitation service models, including partnerships with the private sector that can deliver new sanitation solutions and services efficiently and at low-cost.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-wor ... nd-hygiene

chenda
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by chenda »

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:44 am
I propose that solutions that have been known for decades but aren't implemented, decades after being generally known, simply are not solutions.

Concentrating one's thoughts on forcing compliance to "solutions" that people would not choose for themselves is the essence of wicked problems.
A public sewer system was once a very controversial idea, many reputable people like the editor of The Economist thought it the start of a slippery slope towards communism. In my town their were literally riots over the idea, not 200 years ago. What happened to change this ? I think it was germ theory and the growing urban middle classes who couldn't buy their way out of contagious diseases with privatised solutions. Similarly Putin may have done more in a month to promote energy secure renewables than 30+ years of environmental activism.

Conversely the decline of infections diseases thanks largely to vaccinations has allowed the anti-vaccine movement to flourish due to the fact no one gets polio or TB anymore, thanks to vaccinations.

Actually the whole history of public health is an interesting story of human genius intertwined with inane stupidity and forgetfulness.
Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:21 am
Nobody forced anyone to go electric. Nobody forced Ford to electrify the F-150. People recognized "better effects" and chose them, at their own pace. No herding necessary.
I think there is a LOT of herding and coercion involved with this

Forcing people to do stuff against their will is absolutely necessary for their own good. You just need to find the right whip/lever. I suspect you will find in history somewhere an analogous problem with a solution attached.

zbigi
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by zbigi »

chenda wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:33 pm
A public sewer system was once a very controversial idea, many reputable people like the editor of The Economist thought it the start of a slippery slope towards communism. In my town their were literally riots over the idea, not 200 years ago.
Fascinating. Is there a place (ideally a Wiki page) where I could read more about it?
Similarly Putin may have done more in a month to promote energy secure renewables than 30+ years of environmental activism.
I think Putin has done a ton to promote nuclear, not renewables. Renewables were getting the investment nevertheless, while nuclear has fallen heavily out of fashion lately, because "why go nuclear when renewables are just around the corner". Now, people realised they need reliable energy now, not whenver renewables can actually deliver. And so Japan, for example, has done a 180 degree turn on nuclear.

chenda
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by chenda »

zbigi wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:43 am
Fascinating. Is there a place (ideally a Wiki page) where I could read more about it?
I read about the riots in a local history book I have which doesn't seem to have a online presence (it's only a small town) But this touches on it:

https://branchcollective.org/?ps_articl ... ry-england

The horrendous smells caused by poor sanitation in booming cities were likely the biggest motivator, as they affected everyone, rich and poor alike. Parliament almost had to suspend itself in 1858 as the smell from the Thames was too overpowering. There was also the mistaken belief that cholera was an airborne contagion which would be remedied by improved air quality. Interestingly, the use of alternatives to human manure in the early 19th century by farmers as fertiliser contributed to the glut of manure in booming cities, which previously was sold to farmers.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-b ... eat-stink/

chenda
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by chenda »

zbigi wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:43 am
I think Putin has done a ton to promote nuclear, not renewables.
Yes I think so too, there seems to be some discussion as to whether nuclear should be classified as renewable or not. Calling it renewable sounds more palatable.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9437
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:ERE suffers from outsiders trying to envision what their lives would be like on 7k/yr. Because they associate quality of life with dollars consumed, the math is clear, and ERE must suck. Read the comments.

Low energy consumption suffers the same problem. People associate their quality of life with energy consumed. The examples available to them of low energy consumption look unattractive.
I agree. That's why one of my new projects might be putting together some sort of informational product/channel that clearly describes and illustrates 20 (or more!) very different very low spend lifestyle designs with attractive illustrations and step-by-step instructions that may appeal to different demographics. Just a "recipe book" inclusive of "glossy photos", rather than the "recipe book for recipe books" that is ERE. Anyhow, the activity might provide me with some re-inspiration out of the spending-somewhat-more-than-I-would-prefer AND lifestyle-quality-could-be-improved rut I currently find myself rolled into.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15993
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by jacob »

Riggerjack wrote:ERE suffers from outsiders trying to envision what their lives would be like on 7k/yr. Because they associate quality of life with dollars consumed, the math is clear, and ERE must suck. Read the comments.

Low energy consumption suffers the same problem. People associate their quality of life with energy consumed. The examples available to them of low energy consumption look unattractive.
This is why these "extreme efforts at the personal level" serve as the spear-point of the movement. They show what's possible. As long as they inspire >1 person to move in the same direction albeit at a less extreme level, they create gross change at a scale that is both larger and exponentially growing. (I can put up some more math for those who are interested.)

Compare the analogous strategy of getting people to exercise by running. A few superstar marathon runners inspire recreational runners to try to run a marathon at least once. This in turn requires training and each person out there training inspires >1 others to try for a 5k. These in turn inspire >1 to get off of the couch. This is a more cheaper and more organic way of getting people to move than "public health campaign with flyers and brochure in every mailbox talking about the importance of 30 minutes of daily moderate exercise."

Add: Actually a better example may be bodybuilders driving the supplement/fitness industry.

If you want to talk numbers, reddit/financialindepence has 1.8M members. If that's a rough guide to the impact of the FIRE movement in the US (330M) people, that's reaching 0.6% of the population(*) If each member represents an average household, FIRE ideas influence $55,000*1.8e6 ~ $100 billion in annual spending. Of course, this is just an estimate but it probably gets within the right order of magnitude. In comparison, 100B is a good-sized government program, alternatively a mega-corporation. This is also why governments that pay attention are beginning to get concerned about their budgets, because the movement is big enough to have GDP impact. Something that has the potential to influence 0.5% of GDP is nothing to sneeze at.

(*) I consider this estimate accurate if not precise because different estimates end up around the same half-percent.

More interestingly, such a movement is not a centrally organized hierarchy with top-down control. It's people copying and comparing themselves to other people each being inspired by those who do "slightly more".

It doesn't matter if ERE turns off the average hoi polloi as long as it inspires one Pete to start blogging seriously or one JD to change his opinion on FIRE ... because they in turn will inspire dozens of others to start blogging seriously... who in turn inspires dozens of others. Go 3-4 layers out and now we're talking 1000 voices communicating the same message albeit at different WLs to 1-2 million people.

Those who have been interested in personal finance for more than 15 years (ERE is actually 15 years old now) may remember how less than a handful (~1%) of the personal finance bloggers ever talked about financial independence. Now it seems like it's the only thing they talk about! Even someone retiring 2 years before SS uses the FIRE framework.

In short, if you zoom out to the big picture, finding a one good idea that can be levered for change within the current framework can have a lot of organic self-distributing impact.

Add: So, yes, this parallels the electric car example mentioned earlier. The Tesla Roadster (I might be wrong about the model, I'm not a car guy) was very expensive and very few were ever going to buy it. However, it was extreme and did something better than any other car. This in turn got more people turned onto electric cars ... and so the inspiration trickled down to the point where most people buy a Spark or some such. While the Roadster was unaffordable (wah wah) to the masses, it still greatly influenced the direction of the car buying habits of the masses, so that EVs are now a thing commercially despite the first electric car being nearly 200 years old now with all 20th century attempts to revive it being commercial flops.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9437
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jacob:

All very true, but you need a better analogy, because in the 5 decades since running was first popularized as an activity, its largest effect has been on the likelihood of seeing somebody who is completely out of shape wearing athletic shoes.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15993
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by jacob »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 3:04 pm
All very true, but you need a better analogy, because in the 5 decades since running was first popularized as an activity, its largest effect has been on the likelihood of seeing somebody who is completely out of shape wearing athletic shoes.
Think of that as the asymptotic tier or the boundary of the fitness movement's influence. For any movement, especially one that expands into consumer-space, the least engaged are those who "bought the equipment, but never used it", whether that equipment be an unread book, a powertool, a business suit, no-shows, ...

Of course there are also hipsters who co-opt the cool factor and buy stuff w/o ever intending on using it as designed. Urban lumberjacks, most truck owners, and so on and so forth.

Add: I suppose one can also add another tier of those who thought about but chose not to ... and one behind this of those who are aware of the concept. Each new tier decreases in impact and relevance, so to keep it simple, one can define a metric by its cutoff. However, as long as that cutoff is sufficiently far out, quibbling about its exact distance is immaterial. Kinda like 1/2+1/4+1/8+.... very quickly converges on 1.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9437
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jacob:

Gotcha. However, it is interesting to consider how the FIRE and/or frugality movement might manifest as token at the athletic-shoes-for-couch-potatoes level. FIRE is easier, might be something like a Robinhood account left virtually abandoned with $17.39 balance. I guess frugality would be the Dave Ramsey book purchased at the airport a couple of months before you just go ahead and file for bankruptcy. Or a never used piggybank tossed in a landfill.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: 4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

Post by classical_Liberal »

jacob wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:22 pm
and so the inspiration trickled down to the point where most people buy a Spark or some such. While the Roadster was unaffordable (wah wah) to the masses, it still greatly influenced the direction of the car buying habits of the masses, so that EVs are now a thing commercially despite the first electric car being nearly 200 years old now with all 20th century attempts to revive it being commercial flops.
Ha! trickle down is back in style? Are any of Regan's economists still alive?

Secondly, isn't is possible to conflate a larger scale cultural momentum change, potentially generations in the making, with smaller components internal of said change?

IOW, running was going to be part of 1980's+ culture with or without Nike. If that's the case, how can Nike justify it's horrible practices antithetical to current norms (horrible carbon practices, slave labor, etc). It seems like the standard, I fly a private jet to SAVE carbon because (insert here) argument. Ends, assuming the ends were not already predetermined by millions of years of evolutionary biology, (Hint: they probably were) still do not justify the means.

Post Reply