Commentary by Roger Erickson
Quantifying sustainability: Implications for [capitalism]
If we can't fuse the management of crude, static-asset markets back into a small subset of all the dynamic values that have driven 3.5 billion years of evolution on planet earth .... we deserve to die out.
Economists as naval-gazing dinousaurs? Only one of THOUSANDS of NAICS feedback channels? There's nothing essentially wrong with orthodox economists existing. There are complete fools & irrelevant Luddites in EVERY profession.
The problem is the weighting of the feedback!
Why on earth do electorates elect policy-staff fools who listen PRIMARILY to theoretical-economist Luddites? Why not just maximize our REAL operations, as we've always done? And in the process, improve the quality of our own, distributed decision-making?
There's little theory needed for catching mice. Just assign many people to catch mice, and review what actually works best. Note to electorate: It's ALWAYS a complete surprise. So please quit trying to make our policy operations into a durned religion! There's a reason to separate Church & State. Religion applies to the things we DON'T understand, NOT to the little stuff we can discover through trial and error. We have ZERO predictive power! Luckily, however, we seem to have near infinite ADAPTIVE power - but only if we actually use it. It's called accelerated trial and error, and it's quite easy.
So just explore our options, see what works, and go with the distributed sum of all the things that make our whole greater than the sum of our parts? That makes everything easy. It's called auto-catalysis. Catalyzing national, not just personal, success yields the highest return by far. If you don't think so, move to Russia, or China, or Zimbabwe, were it's every person for themselves.
We have to work hard to fail at operations. That only occurs when religion runs amok into micromanagement of the operations were supposed to render unto Caesar - or our own initiative. We have constant reminders NOT to do that, but we don't weight that advice highly enough to follow it?
Please, weight your vote where your mouth is.
1 comment:
A species as a body must stop to grow, although reasons may differ.
In what the species is better than body is the species can continue rejuvenate, while the body can't as this can only rely on meiosis.
But "cells" of species are formed by recombination or mitosis.
So, a species can last for much longer than the bodies constituting it.
This in some sense does not relieve species from growing, developing, stopping or regressing, even dying...
So, a species will face in the end the same choices that the body faces except the species has always the option of going on to live and developing...
Options that bodies can live or not in the limited amount time each has allotted.
Some bodies sense possibilities better than others.
Yet, apparently species does not recognize these capabilities more than keeping people alive enough to blog and write.
Easier or more difficult positions aside, it seems to these rare possibilities researchers that they are very alone indeed...
Post a Comment