That is, the same, evolutionary reason that nervous systems ended up with massively parallel CNS network designs, notwithstanding the occasional demand for insane signal propagation speeds in things like, e.g., the extremely long, giant squid motor neuron axons.
Computer Chip Design Wars
By the same logic, shouldn't our national policy apparatus be going for deliberate, Distributed Planning? Rather than the supposedly faster benefits of Central Planning?
National Policy Design-Wars? Isn't that what's always going on? Yet have you EVER met a national policy advisor, Congressperson or Federal Agency Head that you could even HAVE this present discussion with? Not since Rexford Tugwell or Marriner Eccles in 1933? They were both, figuratively, born in a barn. Maybe we should all be.
It's Ye Olde Question of which method comes out better in the long run.
If we were just interested in doing EVERYTHING we know how to do right now, and doing everything faster, then yes, Central Planning by dictators - or a Communist Central Party, or a 0.1% financial aristocracy which owns all our Congresspeople - would work.
However, our reality is that our emerging goals - what few, new things we next have to selectively FOCUS on doing well - always matters far more. What part of ongoing natural selection don't the 0.1%, naked-emperor, currency-hoarding Central Planners understand?
Massively parallel feedback assessment drives Natural Selection better than any other known design? Same as in cultural-market-systems as it does in central-nervous-systems? Democracy works?
Ya think?
Right now, achieving an electorate where everybody was, literally, born in a barn, sure is looking like it would be an improvement. Instead of becoming MORE massively parallel in our selective feedback and distributed natural selections, we've become massively isolated. Worse, population growth and increasingly narrow training is accelerating distributed isolation faster than collective efforts to re-connect our electorate.
Good luck with that.
If we don't select which FEW things make the MOST difference in return for the least effort ... everything else we race around distracting ourselves with won't amount to a hill of beans?
It's Ye Olde Question of which method comes out better in the long run.
If we were just interested in doing EVERYTHING we know how to do right now, and doing everything faster, then yes, Central Planning by dictators - or a Communist Central Party, or a 0.1% financial aristocracy which owns all our Congresspeople - would work.
However, our reality is that our emerging goals - what few, new things we next have to selectively FOCUS on doing well - always matters far more. What part of ongoing natural selection don't the 0.1%, naked-emperor, currency-hoarding Central Planners understand?
Massively parallel feedback assessment drives Natural Selection better than any other known design? Same as in cultural-market-systems as it does in central-nervous-systems? Democracy works?
Ya think?
Right now, achieving an electorate where everybody was, literally, born in a barn, sure is looking like it would be an improvement. Instead of becoming MORE massively parallel in our selective feedback and distributed natural selections, we've become massively isolated. Worse, population growth and increasingly narrow training is accelerating distributed isolation faster than collective efforts to re-connect our electorate.
Good luck with that.
If we don't select which FEW things make the MOST difference in return for the least effort ... everything else we race around distracting ourselves with won't amount to a hill of beans?
Ya think?
