Professor Zadeh's meaning of 'efficiency increase' is cost-cutting. It is interesting to note that in one area this would be impossible -- the construction of infrastructure like bridges, tunnels, etc. This is one area where efficiency increases would largely be impossible, and so that function needs to be performed by pubic funds levied by taxes. The major opposition to that is military expenditure, which consumes most of an 'important' society's funds. The military does not reckon efficiency increases as a benefit either. Its function is claimed to have priority if there is to be a society in the first place. It might be said that the major reason for the existence of any state is military activity. So, infrastructure upkeep is squeezed between cost-cutting by firms that would be needed to support it, and by tax fund devouring by the military.
STAN On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > I think this might be of interest for FISers too. ---P. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Fw: [bisc-group] The Curse of Efficiency > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:45:41 +0800 > From: 赵川 <zh...@cdut.edu.cn> > To: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, Joseph Brenner < > joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>, Mihir-work <mihi...@gmail.com> > > > > lets share this reflection idea of Zadeh. Zhao Chuan > > > -----原始邮件----- > *发件人:* "Lotfi A. Zadeh" <za...@eecs.berkeley.edu> > *发送时间:* 2013-06-28 06:53:42 > *收件人:* > bisc-gr...@lists.eecs.**berkeley.edu<bisc-gr...@lists.eecs.berkeley.edu> > *抄送:* > *主题:* [bisc-group] The Curse of Efficiency > > Dear members of the BISC Group: > > Sometime ago, January 1, 1998, I wrote a piece on efficiency. On > reading this piece, it occurred to me that what I said at that time is > still valid. Following is what I wrote. Comments are welcome. > > Regards to all, > > Sincerely, > > Lotfi > > > *The Curse of Efficiency* > > > > Recently, I had a brush with efficiency. My experience added a notch to an > accumulating level of anger and frustration over what is becoming an > all-too-common experience in our efficiency-driven society. > > A friend locked himself out of his car in front of my house. He asked me > to call Emergency Road Service for assistance. I dialed the number and, as > usual, was greeted with a recorded message: “Your call will be answered by > the next available representative. Thank you for waiting. Our call center > is presently experiencing a high volume of calls and all service > representatives are busy servicing other member calls. Please accept our > apology.” > > For the next several minutes, I heard the same message repeated over and > over again, with recorded music in between. As I was holding the handset, > my blood pressure was rising. I asked myself: What would I do if I had to > place the call not from the comfort of my home but from an outdoor phone in > freezing weather? In a state of frustration, I felt an irrational urge to > smash the handset down. In a related way, the exasperating experience of > dealing with menu-driven voice-mail systems make many of us nostalgic for > the days when such labor-saving systems did not exist. > > The issues which underlie experiences like mine are well-understood. By > downsizing its workforce, a company lowers operating costs, increases > profits, improves its competitive position, increases stock price, wins > applause from Wall Street and, not coincidentally, increases the value of > stock options of its executives. The losers are the laid-off workers and > the company’s clientele. For a company, the advantages of downsizing are > clear-cut. The pain and inconvenience inflicted on others carry much less > weight. However, as in the case of price wars, unilateral moves to improve > efficiency may result in a situation in which everybody is worse off. > > Beyond the obvious issues there are two that stand out in importance. > First, the benefits of efficiency are usually measurable and immediate, > while the costs are diffuse, hard to quantify and many lie in the future. > An example is the addition of lead to gasoline, which had greatly improved > the efficiency of gasoline engines. It took decades to realize that the use > of lead additives is a serious health hazard, particularly in the case of > children. Once the consequences were understood, the use of lead additives, > at least in the United States, was phased out. > > Another example is the use of antibiotics in animal feed. In this case, > improvement in efficiency has led to the development of drug-resistant > bacteria and a growing number of allergic reactions in the general > population. A more recent example is the unfreezing of land rents in > Egypt―aimed at improving the efficiency of land utilization―which may > pauperize hundreds of thousands of tenant farmers and lead to serious > social unrest. > > Second, a move to improve efficiency generally leads to a small gain for > many and a large loss for few. A classic example is a reduction in tariffs > on importa. In this case, many gain a little and a few experience the > trauma of losing their jobs. Another example is our health care systems. In > this instance, an improvement in efficiency leads to lower health care > costs for many and a substantially reduced income for a relatively small > number of specialized medical personnel. > > At what point does a small gain for many outweigh a large loss for a few? > There is no theory of justice or rationality that provides an answer to > this fundamental question and it is not likely that there will be one in > the foreseeable future. > > A basic issue that relates to efficiency plays a pivotal role in the > current turmoil in financial markets. > > In the United States, it is an article of faith that deregulation, > privatization, free trade and globalization lead to higher efficiency and > bring about economic growth. However, in a paper which I wrote in 1974, I > suggested that the growing degree of interdependence brought about by > technological progress and its concomitant globalization necessitate a > higher degree of coordination and regulation to maintain stability and > prevent catastrophic failures. This necessity is in conflict with > acceptance of deregulation as a prime component of economic policy. > > The problem is that in democracies the electorate is resistant to higher > levels of coordination, regulation and taxation, and future generations > have no vote. The result is a growing imbalance which I described as the > crisis of undercoordination. In my view, it is primarily this imbalance > that underlies the financial, economic and social crises that are spreading > in extent and growing in intensity. > > -- > Lotfi A. Zadeh Professor Emeritus > Director, Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC) BISC Homepage URLs > URL: http://zadeh.cs.berkeley.edu/ > > > -- > ------------------------------**------------------- > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/**pedrocmarijuan/<http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/> > ------------------------------**------------------- > > > ********************************************************************* > Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC) > ********************************************************************* > > > If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, > you can send mail to <sy...@lists.eecs.berkeley.edu> with the following > command in the body of your email message: > unsubscribe bisc-group > or from another account, > unsubscribe bisc-group <your_email_adress> > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
