On 3/7/2013 7:11 PM, archytas wrote:
have to say most of the people I see claiming to be risk takers
clearly are not.
Hi,
yes, but Nature has a rule: Do the most with the least. If some
entities can off load their risk they will. Moral valuations of the
particulars are subject to observer bias...
It may seem glib to ask how you can tell the
difference between a risk taker and a moron but I'd argue this gets to
the root of a big lie about risk.
The moron will probably not make any ROI..
I tend to look at why humans organise so badly before thinking about
leadership and risk-taking. I'm a long way from convinced anyone is
much good at either.
Warren Buffet, Peter Thiel and George Sorros would differ...
I'm also concerned on how long we have to keep
rewarding inventors with rents (in the sense of economic rents or
tolls). Windows should be free by now - a utility - but this is only
one example. I suspect big companies and banks actually prevent a lot
of creativity and would be better run as utilities until we don't need
them.
You might wish to look at the actual facts and less at
suspicions... I am not defending any view here, think of me as Joe
Friday "Just the facts, Man."
But we have nearly all economics upside down.
What alternatives exists given the physical realities? it might
suck, but the other options might suck harder...
The first question
should be about what the planet can maintain.
How exactly is this figure calculated? Malthus tried this and his
predictions failed. How do you know that it is possible to even predict
the carrying capacity? Why are we not thinking of resources off planet?
Economics seems to deny
that we can organise decent,
Why is that?
better ways of living rationally
Can our 'living' be managed by an algorithm?
and have
instead to rely on entrepreneurs, charismatics and other vapours in a
system that rather fortunately keeps the rich richer and makes them
richer.
Perhaps that is the optimal solution!
Jurgen Habermas wrote an interesting critique of this in 1970
called 'Technology as ideology' - but all we really lack is a true
accounting system for what is going on. The rich need the motivation
of something they already have (money) but workers can put up with
wages declining in respect of productivity. And no one seems to
think, as we approach robot heaven (admittedly not yet available on
Earth - but we are approaching this) we might need new work and
distributive ethics? What place in a world where robots could do all
the work would there be for current half-wits who laud hard work as
necessary to success?
O
Ideologies have, almost always lead to misery and megadeaths... "He
who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it..."
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
