Re: [Futurework] RE: Newton et al

[Ed Weick]

I sent the following off to the list an hour or so ago.  It does not seem to have made it.  Apologies if the original version (They were pretty dim...) surfaces. Ed Weick Stephen: > What is this legacy? ...> > The basic idea is this: since there are (natural) > *mechanisms* that assure best results -- in nature, in > biology, and in society -- the enlightened citizen abandons > a sentimental and childish pursuit of godly justice or the > anti-social ethics of the Sermon on the Mount and realizes > that there are no ethical or political issues *as such*. All > our social ills are discovered to be social problems of > administration and *management* -- hence the prominence of > "the economy" and managing the economy in modern politics. > All else is subsidiary to this. > > I think that a realization of how deeply and unconsciously > "we" are committed to this vision of things, to this > mechanistic understanding of the natural and social worlds, > goes a long way to explaining our behavior and our politics. I for one am glad that we have abandoned the Sermon on the Mount because I don't want to feel that I have to gouge my right eye out or cut off my right hand.  That sounds a little too much like the absolute application of Sharia.  Nor do I always want to turn the other cheek. I would agree that, to some degree, we still adhere to the Newtonian/Lockeian/Smithian vision of things as Stephen suggests.  In Economics 150 we are still taught that an economically efficient system is a perfectly competitive one that achieves equilibrium by having everyone behave in his or her self interest.  In Economics 175, welfare economics, we are still taught that such an equilibrium might not be fair and equitable unless methods of having the "haves" compensate the "have nots" are introduced without having the "haves" really lose anything.  These concepts of efficient allocation and equitable distribution, along with matters like justice and maintaining the integrity of the state, continue to be among the most important foundations of our political thought and actions.  And, yes, we do tend to believe that our elected governments can, for better or worse, manage society and the economy. Yet I would suggest that, even though we continue to bow in their direction, we've come a long way from the thinkers of the Enlightenment.  We know that the world is not perfectly competitive and that self interested behavior does not always lead to efficient solutions.  It can as easily lead to Microsoft, Enron or Worldcom.  And we know that, despite all of the principles of equity we can come up with, the distribution of income and wealth is still highly inequitable and, if one thinks internationally, is probably becoming less equitable.  However, in my opinion, our most important departure from the Enlightenment lies within the fields of risk and uncertainty.  As Stephen explains it, the Newtonian world was certain. It all fit together like clockwork and worked like a gigantic clock.  If you could but define the inputs and outputs and figure out the path of causation, the results were predictable.  This is no longer acceptable because, in ever so many situations, we cannot do any of these things with any real accuracy or certainty.  We live in a world of surprise and indistinct possibilities.  There may not be any equilibria.  All there may be is uncertain process and indistinct possibilities. Ed Weick