Is the WEF the Optimal Way to Optimize Cultural Recombination?

commentary by Roger Erickson

All prior outcomes say "Hell No!"

See: The Rentiers of OutputGap, NLC (across the valley from OkunGap, Sanityland).

See also, the class-badges of the World Economic Forum.

The evolving, varying strategy expressed in the world day in & day out is roughly as follows.

1) Generate as much diversity as possible, by actively interacting with nearly EVERYONE & everything - as in NOW, Rapidly, Carefully.

2) Start selecting unpredictably useful group-recombinations (permutations) from that diversity, by generating iterative feedback with nearly EVERYONE and everything.

3) Participate in a distributed rush to select, based on insufficient data, unpredictably useful permutations from that diversity, by testing nearly EVERY permutation of EVERY group variant available, against ongoing contexts. BE part of the diversity curve defining inscrutable solution paths by outline, and then drag ALL recombinant resources along to the next selection choke point so you can help solve even bigger challenges.

Along the way, we're constantly RECOMBINING - not isolating - all known variables, via sexual/behavioral/cultural recombination. The outcome is net Options Recombination. As a process, the output of Options Recombination is entirely unpredictable, but explorable, and we can coherently navigate our expanding Options Space if we work TOGETHER sooner/faster/better.

Interact and "recombine" (in any form) ONLY within your imagined "class?" BMHOTK!  Double FacePalm!!  It's called in-breeding, folks, and has always been disastrous, no matter which form it takes.

Switzerland? Davos? Myth of billionaire hillbillies marrying cloned method-sets and duplicate paradigms? No wonder it's outcome indicators have caused the Weird-Shit-Ometer dial to zoom off it's scale.

Here's some advice. Don't bother going to the WEF. And sure as hell don't spend any significant sum for the thrill of inbreeding. Listen up, honky, it don't pay. The rest of the 7 billion people on the planet are your free option set. Go get, I say, go get 'em boys & girls! (Nice kids these rentier babies, but they're slower'n fiat stuck in molasses.)

Physical inbreeding? Result = genome/behavioral features that are not always instantly recognizable early on. Commonly viewed as people featured in photo collections (here's just one example of many spoofs) who you'd likely not want to add to your own family's gene pool - for a variety of reasons.

Ideological inbreeding? Result = sociopaths also not instantly recognizable to the inexperienced mind. Commonly described as rentiers fixated on hoarding fiat, and maladaptively denying it to potential recombinants. You'd definitely NOT want to keep too many of their ideologies unregulated in your nation's toolkit. With experience, surviving cultures - just like individuals - eventually learn how to move on, by actively governing the low, strategic distribution and use of such honeypot ants in coordinated population sets.

Viewed through the right lens, the rentier set of ideologically inbred humans is actually far uglier than the physically inbred individuals. They're just another complex, cultural dead end. Most people and groups just haven't yet practiced discriminating the ideological failings of the inbred rentier set. We really need multiple websites graphically featuring the consequences of obsessing over "The Rentiers of OutputGap."  Do you have photos or visualizations of failed groups and their failed ideologies?  Please send them to me.*

Joke: What's the definition of a scalable option in NeoLiberal Land?

  A group option, 5 minutes old, that can still outrun it's rentier siblings!

* rge at Operations Institute dot comeon.