Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: >>The basic mechanism is evolution. Fit organizations survive >>and weak ones do not. >> >> > >Except you leave out the long list of 'control' mechanisms where >weakness is the enduring strength. A manager who knows when to let >things develop unhindered is a far more useful person to have around >than one that thinks the whole world needs to be micro-managed, for >example. > > A manager must provide control over certain dimensions (i.e. navigate a class of disturbances) or their job is unneeded.Ways in which work is individualized can be healthy for the organization and in those cases probably should be ignored or encouraged by its managers. That's another reason I'm skeptical that decision making is getting that so much more complicated as a function of growth. The dimensions for control don't cover the details of all of the work, just important ones, and esp. those that relate to interactions with others. Meanwhile, technology itself encapsulates a lot of complexity in our world. For example, I don't need to know how SMTP relays works to send this e-mail. >>As organizations become more fit, they control more of the ecology. >> >> >As we've been discussing about civilizations, it's frequently the diverse >cultures able to follow the lead of any part with a useful point of view that >survive environmental change by adapting without replacement. Is that >Darwinian selection?, or something else? > > If one organization gets overextended trying to soak up the resources of an ecology, and another organization survives in that ecology, or one nearby with a strategy as you describe then, whether or not there is conflict, there is a fitness advantage to the stable group relative to the overextended group.If the overextended group breaks up, it doesn't necessarily mean people die, but the organization does. >Sure, what survives is not necessarily what's 'fittest' in any holistic sense, >and prospering by restraint of trade (or holding power by slandering other >people's ideas) produces a sick business. > If there is a notion of the welfare of the whole, someone has to arbitrarily define it and then work to keep people persauded of that idea. If we refuse to accept such an essentially religious foundation, then what we are left with is organizations interacting, where the organizations have many degrees of freedom and different fundamental characteristics (e.g. corporations, governments, religions, non-profit advocacy groups). We don't have to think about humanity as a `host' and the organizations akin to retroviruses rewiring its DNA. That's a model biased by a definition of goodness. We can simply say that organizations draw from finite pool of human resources, and the organizations can fail and then stop interacting with others. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Marcus writes: > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > >..well, unless you rely on how a system 'out of control' will take care > >of itself > > > The basic mechanism is evolution. Fit organizations survive > and weak ones do not. Except you leave out the long list of 'control' mechanisms where weakness is the enduring strength. A manager who knows when to let things develop unhindered is a far more useful person to have around than one that thinks the whole world needs to be micro-managed, for example. > As organizations become more fit, they control more of the ecology. Isn't the survival of the fittest concept that unfit organizations disappear, leaving the impression that surviving organizations are more fit, a organization replacement rather than improvement idea? As we've been discussing about civilizations, it's frequently the diverse cultures able to follow the lead of any part with a useful point of view that survive environmental change by adapting without replacement. Is that Darwinian selection?, or something else? > It's a basic requirement of any organization to fight for its > survival or get squeezed out. That depends partly on the environment. It's certainly valid in the present competitive environment which ensures that every business's profits will be used to multiply its competition, but might not necessarily follow were that not the case. > When dominant organizations stop > fighting, e.g. by forming cartels, they become fat and more vulnerable to attack or > systematic intervention by government (much the same kind of the same > thing). Of course the cartels can have strong influence over the > government and thus inequity can persist. Sure, what survives is not necessarily what's 'fittest' in any holistic sense, and prospering by restraint of trade (or holding power by slandering other people's ideas) produces a sick business. There's lots of motivation to shut competitors out of one's markets by any means available, but the line between healthy competition and unhealthy restraint of trade is fuzzy. Should businesses that ignore or hide their contributions to global warming, for example, be penalized by taxing their wares? Or should we just use the survival test to judge economic systems in which businesses dominate that ignore the value of the commons? I think price mechanisms measure some of the important things, and we need a variety of other measures so that people's choices can reflect their whole values. One major problem with this ideal is that there's something wrong with politics, a dirty business where people habitually cheat and slander each other while being exceedingly timid about admitting their uncertainties, rather than openly collaborating from different points of view... From my natural systems view it appears one thing missing is the assumption that every complaint probably has some valid basis, in that we all seem to have the same equal basis for our own views, i.e. that ultimately we all made them up based on an independent whole life experience of which no one else is aware! :-) > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: >..well, unless you rely on how a system 'out of control' will take care >of itself > The basic mechanism is evolution. Fit organizations survive and weak ones do not. As organizations become more fit, they control more of the ecology. It's a basic requirement of any organization to fight for its survival or get squeezed out.When dominant organizations stop fighting, e.g. by forming cartels, they become fat and more vulnerable to attack or systematic intervention by government (much the same kind of the same thing). Of course the cartels can have strong influence over the government and thus inequity can persist. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Marcus wrote: > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Growth taken to it's absolute limit always leads to an absolutely > > impenetrable wall of complexity, at which point turbulence > > or it's equivalents interrupt the > > whole process. I don't think we want to do that. > > > To control a system a regulator must be able to absorb and respond to at > least as much information as the regulated entity can produce. ..well, unless you rely on how a system 'out of control' will take care of itself, like Tom Sawyer, or cities or markets designed around infrastructure that defines a fair playing field which lets people do what they like, out of control. That's what free markets are all about after all, fair exchange where the participants are completely free to do what they like with what they take away from it. > To reduce forms of company-internal entropy, large companies tend to > spin-off successful and unsuccessful business units. To reduce forms > of external entropy, we also see big companies buy smaller companies > simply to nip potential competition in the bud. The need for control is > built-in and forces companies away from overly-complicated decision > making. The need for control by government is also present, and one > form it takes are antitrust laws. How businesses actually operate certainly does provide great evidence of how complex systems work. One of the things I find interesting is the role of an organization's central structure in providing a path of least resistance for things that are essentially out of control. You have great people? The whole job is getting out of their way and letting them work. When government does that for society at large sometimes it means fostering basic scientific research, and sometimes it means removing barriers to the powerful for doing whatever they want with the rest of us. Some good some bad. > Given these forces, there is a push away from the absolute limit. And > provided there is room for the participants and the raw materials that > makes them go, it's not clear to me why this kind of system couldn't > expand, and indefinitely. It is a `small' matter of technology. By > genetically engineering more energy efficient food or people, spreading > to other planets, etc. the problems of sustainability could be addressed. Well, sure, things veer away from absolute limits or they don't survive, and the world seems mostly made up of things that have in some way or another passed that test. An analogy I've been thinking about is that walking is understood as 'organized falling', where you take a step because it catches you from falling flat on your face, but it's just shy of catching you entirely, so you shortly need to take another step to keep you from falling flat on your face again, etc. If you decide to pick up the speed to a jog or a sprint it's a simple matter of having your steps be just a little less successful at keeping you upright, and as your steps lag in the task of preventing you from falling you accelerate, moving faster and faster. At some point before you're exhausted it's good to take steps that are *more* than sufficient to stabilize your fall, either to pace yourself by easing back to a jog, or just to not run smack into things as you arrive at your door. This is steering, and a plan to fall forward ever faster forever, and have your legs magically keep up with it somehow, is dreaming not steering. I think there is good reason to suspect that the plans for me and my descendants to continually multiply the complexity of our tasks forever is faulty. I notice that you use as your assurance, as is rather common, the phrase "it's not clear to me why this kind of system couldn't expand, and indefinitely". Isn't it odd the way we establish long range plans with a test showing an absence of clarity? I find it hard to know when to use it, though it pays off SO well sometimes, but I hope to have the sense to just say "I don't know.." when that's the case.It seems like a much stronger and more versatile general observation. > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: > Growth taken to it's absolute limit always leads to an absolutely > impenetrable wall of > complexity, at which point turbulence or it's equivalents interrupt the > whole process. I don't think we want to do that. > To control a system a regulator must be able to absorb and respond to at least as much information as the regulated entity can produce. To reduce forms of company-internal entropy, large companies tend to spin-off successful and unsuccessful business units. To reduce forms of external entropy, we also see big companies buy smaller companies simply to nip potential competition in the bud. The need for control is built-in and forces companies away from overly-complicated decision making. The need for control by government is also present, and one form it takes are antitrust laws. Given these forces, there is a push away from the absolute limit. And provided there is room for the participants and the raw materials that makes them go, it's not clear to me why this kind of system couldn't expand, and indefinitely. It is a `small' matter of technology. By genetically engineering more energy efficient food or people, spreading to other planets, etc. the problems of sustainability could be addressed. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Markus wrote: > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > >That could cause a wave of change in how > >money is used to multiply money.The people following the new > >practice could choose not to do business with those clinging > to the old way, interpreting it as 'cheating'. > > A robust system has to at least tolerate clever people acting in their > own self interest. Yes, and perceptions of self-interest can change. For the people of the Soviet Union their totalitarian system lost credibility and the expressed self-interest of the vast majority shifted abruptly as a result. > The profits from financial instruments are so big > that just making something taboo wouldn't slow rational people from > doing it. It would have to be illegal to significantly slow, and that > would require a broad consensus throughout the major governments and > financial centers of the world not to mention a highly-instrumented > banking data processing infrastructure for enforcement by agents acting > in the public interest. Absolutely! We're talking about a system that could not be changed without a substantial global consensus that there's something deeply wrong with a plan to just explosively multiply economic activity and never establish a sustainable system of life support. > Maybe Ralph Nader in front of a terminal press > "Y" and "N"?Perhaps funders of terrorism will motivate such a system > and it could then be retasked? I guess you're trying to say it would take events that could never happen? Never is a big word. There are lots to things that seem like they could never happen just because people haven't thought of how to do it yet. > Another view is that the `explosions' are unavoidable and akin > evolutionarily to punctuated equilibrium. Yes, all complex systems seem to come about through an explosion of organizational development. It perfectly fits the MO of the 'missing data' and whole system change of state patterns of punctuated equilibrium. This could account for the appearance that the great majority of evolutionary change occurs by organizational change spurts in a growth system. It clearly applies to the 500 year growth spurt of modern civilization. Now we're at the 'big wow' point where the future becomes visible, and we begin to see a clear choice. Growth taken to it's absolute limit always leads to an absolutely impenetrable wall of complexity, at which point turbulence or it's equivalents interrupt the whole process. I don't think we want to do that. > Some problems can only be > addressed with huge wealth and a focus that a democracy may have trouble > finding. Thus the Gaia of $$$ finds people like Bill & Melinda Gates, > and Warren Buffett to soak up the excess and ultimately channel it. I'd tend to agree that's a plausible good side of concentrated wealth, even if Bill and Warren are still believers in the idea that the greatest good for all is done by giving them the most money, which I doubt. If people and institutions were no longer able to multiply their wealth by driving the environment around them to multiply its returns to them for..., there would still be a use for single creative individuals having control over how large sums of money are used. I can't predict how that would develop, but I expect it would. > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: >That could cause a wave of change in how >money is used to multiply money.The people following the new >practice could choose not to do business with those clinging to the old way, >interpreting it as 'cheating'. > A robust system has to at least tolerate clever people acting in their own self interest.The profits from financial instruments are so big that just making something taboo wouldn't slow rational people from doing it. It would have to be illegal to significantly slow, and that would require a broad consensus throughout the major governments and financial centers of the world not to mention a highly-instrumented banking data processing infrastructure for enforcement by agents acting in the public interest. Maybe Ralph Nader in front of a terminal press "Y" and "N"?Perhaps funders of terrorism will motivate such a system and it could then be retasked? Another view is that the `explosions' are unavoidable and akin evolutionarily to punctuated equillibrium.Some problems can only be addressed with huge wealth and a focus that a democracy may have trouble finding. Thus the Gaia of $$$ finds people like Bill & Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett to soak up the excess and ultimately channel it. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Doug writes, > Phil writes. > > "I think that would have the usual negative side effects of > imposing political controls on 'free' markets." > > > I think we have been led down the wrong path. Marts are free > and interesting. Capitalism however is a process of control > of markets, using the state apparatus and the very > boundedness of the nation state to control money, interest > and markets. Our problem is not markets but capitalism. Since > capital seeks controls, the only way to prevent the > distortion (concentration of wealth and power) is state > intervention. Capitalism is like an organism, a physical/social system that grew out of human values and talents, that we tend to refer to as if someone was in charge.That may be the only way our language allows us to speak about such things yet, but I think most people understand that no one really designed it, runs it, built it, or quite understands it. Still, it's no illusion to imagine it has a behavior of its own, that it has many different kinds of cells and circuits, that it looks different from every perspective. I'm not sure what it means to say 'since capital seeks controls'. Perhaps that's about the roots of capitalism in how people use power to multiply power and dominate. The countervailing force in capitalism is its stimulus of individual creativity, which has been a very effective counter to the worst effects of attempted social control by the powerful. I don't agree, though, that state intervention is needed to change what causes the worst parts of the problem, the system's strong tendency of wreck anything good by overdoing it. That's a perpetual trap. The scenario I have in mind is of certain information getting around, and the idea of endless growth loosing its credibility, for a critical mass of influential people. That could cause a wave of change in how money is used to multiply money.The people following the new practice could choose not to do business with those clinging to the old way, interpreting it as 'cheating'. That could 'flip the feedback switch' of the global system and allow it to stabilize. There actually are huge and growing numbers of rich folks, buying certified organic food and certified 'sustainable' design, who haven't quite recognized that they're living a lie by drawing their wealth from various kinds of un-sustainable development. I think it's quite possible the right information could let them see the contradictions in that. > Remember, the state interfered by chartering > corporations in the first place. Tweaking the charters > towards some modest form of bias away from concentration is > just a correction on the existing dependence of corporations > on state regulation. There are indeed a great many choices for how to make investment 'unprofitable'. That's the strange necessary requirement for any sustainable economic system. On the face of it it's 'ridiculous', but you can see the humor by reasoning that it's no more unthinkable than our having actually built our life support system on the natural system model of a bomb! (all explosion all the time!) The trick is to find a way to unplug it that still makes evolving businesses rewarding and fun. That's what the right interpretation of the change I propose would do. The basic question is still, how can large groups of people stay responsive to change, and not be caught off guard by mass delusion and beliefs that are held long beyond their usefulness. Today the most popular thing in the world, our system of multiplying our own creativity, has been found to have no way to stop. Looks to me like a reasonable cause for a little extra spurt of creativity! > Doug Carmichael > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release > Date: 12/13/2006 6:13 PM > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Douglass Carmichael wrote: > Tweaking the > charters towards some modest form of bias away from concentration is just a > correction on the existing dependence of corporations on state regulation. If the idea is to avoid the fragile concentration of power in the hands of a small number of mere mortals (e.g. leaders that do dumb things and impact many people for the worse), more changes than just the tax codes (e.g. heavily taxing profits) would be needed as there'd still be the possibility of reinvesting the earnings in the companies themselves. The ways in which unregulated reinvestment could occur might easily result in a different sort of concentration of power. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil writes. "I think that would have the usual negative side effects of imposing political controls on 'free' markets." I think we have been led down the wrong path. Marts are free and interesting. Capitalism however is a process of control of markets, using the state apparatus and the very boundedness of the nation state to control money, interest and markets. Our problem is not markets but capitalism. Since capital seeks controls, the only way to prevent the distortion (concentration of wealth and power) is state intervention. Remember, the state interfered by chartering corporations in the first place. Tweaking the charters towards some modest form of bias away from concentration is just a correction on the existing dependence of corporations on state regulation. Doug Carmichael -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release Date: 12/13/2006 6:13 PM FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Doug wrote: >> "The interesting option is to figure out what the >> Interesting options are." > And that may be very difficult. What seems different about my approach is the rigor. It applies to all systems. The 'subjective' part that underlies it is the recognition that natural systems are physical, not imaginary. Imaginary systems are projections that need not function, and physical systems need to function. One of the distracting facts is that though there are easily estimated physical limits to any combination of resource uses, it has been common in the growth of the economy for growth to cause changes in which resources are being used to others with no immediately apparent limit. That's the appearance Michael is raising by mentioning "how the most valuable things in the world are increasingly virtual". That's one reason I focus on the internal limits of growth rather than the external ones. We're simply not going to change the fact that it's humans that have to operate the systems we build, and both the people and the systems have to function. We know something about human weaknesses even if we can fool ourselves about the earth's infinite potentials. The ultimate problem is the lag times in decision making as the growth of productivity allows and requires us to make decisions with ever wider impacts in ever less time. If you're honest about it, what you find is that otherwise unbounded growth always runs into an impenetrable wall of confusion. It's like the proof that the best straight line approximation of an positive exponential is a vertical line at whatever time you ask the question. What you look for, once you understand that hitting that wall is an eventual certainty, is the empirical evidence of it happening. The evidence that the switch in our 500 year economic growth process is under way is abundant. As I understand it, given the complete inability to respond to any of the observation methodology questions I've raised, the entire computational systems research movement has discarded the observation method for learning about things, and so wouldn't know about that. > The simplest would be to > arrange regulation and taxation so that the curves of > increasing concentration of wealth and income were turned in > the opposite direction. That would allow some evolution and > create increased hope for more equal participation. I think that would have the usual negative side effects of imposing political controls on 'free' markets. Another option that might allow the free markets to operate as well or better than they do presently is for people to spend their returns on investment. How that emulates the feedback switch nature uses to resolve growth creatively may not be obvious at first. The trick is imagining something that systems can do to resolve their growth system contradictions from the inside. > Aristotle, in "Coming to be and passing away" wrote that we > can have growth without development (adding water to wine) > and we can have development without growth. (replacing a > simple tile floor with a more complex one). This also hints > at new ways of thinking about the economy. I think that's the second time this has been brought up. It seems logically implied that if humans changed to see their definitions of 'good' and 'better' as qualitative improvement in delivering the same services we might create an infinite scale of 'virtual' wealth in perfecting things and therefore have no physical limits to growth. It sounds 'snaky' to me, because at the limit people would be expected to pay more and more for differences so subtle they would be unable to discern them. In the real world the utopians who have taken something like this approach in the past also seem to have put themselves at a competitive disadvantage and been pushed aside. I think the better choice is the one I observe being used by nature, spending the returns instead of reinvesting them. Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
"The interesting option is to figure out what the Interesting options are." And that may be very difficult. The simplest would be to arrange regulation and taxation so that the curves of increasing concentration of wealth and income were turned in the opposite direction. That would allow some evolution and create increased hope for more equal participation. As the wise man said, "We have a business culture that knows how to create wealth, but not how to distribute it" What of deeper more profound possibilities? We often hear lose talk about the interchangeability among energy, entropy, information, and money. If this is true, we could see that money is just a subset of a larger class of "wealth" of which perhaps real intelligence (the kind that is both rational and deals with meaning for the species)is the more interesting example. If this is true, then the "wealth" in human capacity is already more evenly spread (I am assuming that genetics plus life experience is not much smaller than genetics pus life experience plus formal education) and would allow us - or force us - to reassess what "economy" is all about. Certainly what drives accounting practices is the recognition that some major component of wealth is not captured by the existing system. And it might lead to a different, and highly successful new kind of entrepreneurialism, a kind that could put together this new kind of wealth and compete with the existing system. Does this line of thought have any potential? Aristotle, in "Coming to be and passing away" wrote that we can have growth without development (adding water to wine) and we can have development without growth. (replacing a simple tile floor with a more complex one). This also hints at new ways of thinking about the economy. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/584 - Release Date: 12/12/2006 11:17 PM FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
> > > > That describes, in a jocular way, the concept of homeostasis. When > > the regular balances aren't enough, you just rely on your reserves of > > creativity. The reserves don't cover the gap for infinite strains > > tending rapidly toward infinity, just for some range of unexpected > > events. The interesting option is to figure out what the interesting > > options are. > > > > It seems reasonable to say that the parts and connectedness of our > system are experiencing increasing change. > This doesn't mean something generally frightening will happen, just > something we can't predict. The conclusion is correct. The correct reason is not that the system is undergoing increasing change. It's that it is operating with a mechanism that will necessarily produce overwhelming change, and necessarily upset the processes producing it. > It is hard to say, especially in this > world of technology and concentrated wealth what compensatory > adaptations might occur, > how and by whom their are perceived, and > whether they will also tend toward infinity. but you can partition the universe of possible options for what one could do with a system of multiplying change and see which seem possible and interesting. > Necessity is the mother of invention. Yea, definitely. Seeing the necessity is very helpful, which is why I think it's worth pointing out. Once you see that explosive organizational development (growth) is the way all complex systems begin, and the ones that survive it (evident in great profusion throughout nature) let the destabilization of the multiplier have a constructive rather than destructive result, it gives you a template to try fitting to the popular assumptions for what we should do with the earth. One finds that some of those fit and others don't. That's useful! > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
> > That describes, in a jocular way, the concept of homeostasis. When the > regular balances aren't enough, you just rely on your reserves of > creativity. The reserves don't cover the gap for infinite strains > tending rapidly toward infinity, just for some range of unexpected > events. The interesting option is to figure out what the interesting > options are. > It seems reasonable to say that the parts and connectedness of our system are experiencing increasing change. This doesn't mean something generally frightening will happen, just something we can't predict. It is hard to say, especially in this world of technology and concentrated wealth what compensatory adaptations might occur, how and by whom their are perceived, and whether they will also tend toward infinity. Necessity is the mother of invention. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
That describes, in a jocular way, the concept of homeostasis. When the regular balances aren't enough, you just rely on your reserves of creativity. The reserves don't cover the gap for infinite strains tending rapidly toward infinity, just for some range of unexpected events. The interesting option is to figure out what the interesting options are. Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:28 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > One thing seems sure is that the world's obsession > > with multiplying wealth, power and the complexity of our lives will > > stop being fun and loose credibility > Money, value and stability are different. Thus we have markets, > mechanisms for determining interest and exchange rates, and we see > phenomena like inflation. When these economic things get > out of whack, > the ruling class can draw from their spiritual credit line, > and speak of > opportunity. > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: > One thing seems sure is that the world's obsession > with multiplying wealth, power and the complexity of our lives will > stop being fun and loose credibility Money, value and stability are different. Thus we have markets, mechanisms for determining interest and exchange rates, and we see phenomena like inflation. When these economic things get out of whack, the ruling class can draw from their spiritual credit line, and speak of opportunity. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
One thing seems sure is that the world's obsession with multiplying wealth, power and the complexity of our lives will stop being fun and loose credibility, the same way any 'unstoppable' force built on contradictions does. There's nothing more perfectly certain to be embarrassed than a plan to achieve infinity after all. The question is only how and when. The physics is interesting, and some of the choices are better than others. I am not sure that we would enjoy today the classical democracy without much of the modern social flavor. --Mikhail > Jefferson, De Tocqueville et al. knew about the USSR? >> One more aspect of democracy: it was Western Elites' response to USSR's >> Social Project. --Mikhail FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Paul, I detailed the true underlying dilemma over 20 years ago, but people have thought it couldn't be something so simple. Humanity's central conflict with the earth is a 'simple mistake' we make that has almost nothing to do with whether we hold good or bad values. It's just that, speaking generally, we use investment returns to multiply investment funds. That's the source of the growth imperative that turns *any* pursuit of good to an unmanageable excess, and is sufficient by itself to cause collapse at the peak of success for any system of 'good'. Growth is naturally destabilizing and any meaningful way of stabilizing it will turn its resources to something else. Why other skillful students of the subject like Diamond keep missing the obvious problem that mindlessly multiplying good will always turn it sour I can't say. I had to do quite a lot of intellectual gymnastics to see it. It's one of those things that's hard to get enough distance from, since more 'good' is by definition 'better'. You need to see how that efficiently hides the fact that multiplying good inevitably multiplies harm if you don't know where to stop. The tempting solution is to think you can learn from other people's mistakes and just avoid the circumstances that caught them off guard. You may succeed in avoiding a particular mistake someone else has made, but given exploding demands for response it's completely certain you'll get caught off guard by something you're not paying attention to, and by that, end up making *exactly* the same mistake. In a funny way, it's straining to hold things together that causes them to fall apart.As the problems multiply and you pay ever closer attention to catching them all, the task commands your resources and narrows your view, distracting you from the emergence of new kinds of problems. What you're not watching then gets quite out of hand before you've noticed it. This brings us back to the origin of this thread, the question of how some cultures evolve in a way that is responsive to change and others are not.I think it has to do with various healthy habits of thought like independent observation and looking for the merit in diverse points of view. Then a community's understanding can reflect every point of view, and it's actions become be responsive to all kinds of change. That's one way to state the 'steering principle' of democracy.The more common thing, in most endeavors, is to try to 'decide who's right' and oppose all others. That fails to inform the community because the truth is everyone is right from a different point of view and suppressing all views but one serves as blinders making the collective understanding fragmented and unresponsive. Well, it's a little 'cartoonish' but could use that to explain why man has such a long history of blindly blundering around. It's the dominant ideas that dominate, and that's what does it!:-) Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:39 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution Phil et al: I believe one of the key "popular" books which addresses these issues of continuing economic expansion based on an exploitation of natural resources with no regard to the environment and the natural systems on which we all depend, is Jared Diamond's Collapse. In my mind, the economic systems that we have produced cannot continue much longer and, if not us, our children and grandchildren will face a much different, more difficult, more dangerous world. The proper use of some of our existing tools, such as communication, computers, modeling, complexity/chaos theories may help if they are properly applied and not just used to reinforce the current systems. For those of you who heard Ian's presentation on group animal movement, we might consider humanity to be more akin to locusts, who form swarms out of individual hunger and by biting their neighbors to move the group. Sigh. Something to think about anyway. Paul Paryski FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
I am not sure that we would enjoy today the classical democracy without much of the modern social flavor. --Mikhail > Jefferson, De Tocqueville et al. knew about the USSR? >> One more aspect of democracy: it was Western Elites' response to USSR's >> Social Project. --Mikhail FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil et al: I believe one of the key "popular" books which addresses these issues of continuing economic expansion based on an exploitation of natural resources with no regard to the environment and the natural systems on which we all depend, is Jared Diamond's Collapse. In my mind, the economic systems that we have produced cannot continue much longer and, if not us, our children and grandchildren will face a much different, more difficult, more dangerous world. The proper use of some of our existing tools, such as communication, computers, modeling, complexity/chaos theories may help if they are properly applied and not just used to reinforce the current systems. For those of you who heard Ian's presentation on group animal movement, we might consider humanity to be more akin to locusts, who form swarms out of individual hunger and by biting their neighbors to move the group. Sigh. Something to think about anyway. Paul Paryski FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil, I have been thinking about your comment that you will say something with implications and nobody responds, like your comment about an economic expansion based on our success till we collapse our environment by eating up our own surround. And then you raise the question of bomb hardening of buildings... What of the work of Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies..? To ideas he has 1. societies overspend on infrastructure, and infrastructure costs rise faster than GDP, till all surplus is used up and a cost overshoot happens.. 2. Elites own the infrastructure business and so are motivated to not cut back on costs. Your two ideas seem to fit this. Can a smarter human community avoid the evolutionary failures? Any contact with Tainter? I really admire his work. He has been at the SF Institute.. Doug Carmichael -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:58 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution well... sort of... For one of a million examples, if we multiply our impacts on the earth by adding 10 billion people this century, how much is that relieved by sending 50 or 100 people off to live somewhere else if they can??? Sometimes we should look at the numbers and the timing of things. It may raise more questons than it answers,... but another one I like is estimating the value of the bomb hardening of federal buildings, like the one I'm building now, a big courthouse. It probably adds at least 10 million to the cost. If you guess there are at least 5000 higher priority targets for terrorists in the US than a courthouse in Mississippi, and terrorists wipe out one a year like clock work, that means it'll be at least 5000 years before they get around to mine. Given that the lifetime of the building is expected to be 100 years it's apparent that nature will build and destroy it at least 50 times before a terrorist does, and the lost opportunity cost of $10 million for 5000 years the way you normally calculate it at 3.5% return is 1.8*10^84. That's a lot of bread!! Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:28 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > >We're simply not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge > >variety of ways. > > > > > Here's one way to delay the apocalypse.. > http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/580 - Release Date: 12/8/2006 12:53 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/580 - Release Date: 12/8/2006 12:53 PM FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
That's both interesting, and provides a good example of how to begin assembling evidence of whole system events from anecdotal information. Your syntax is a little unfamiliar in places, but assembling as wide a variety of consistent progressing indicators if very useful. My research method for natural systems (roughly defined as 'movements' with a life of their own) also involves careful analysis of the turning points in their growth curves.You might find that interesting to pursue. One easy way to collect information on natural system events in the development of ideas, policies and trends, etc., is to pick one or more key phrases and do a historical search in an established database for the frequency of their use.Separating one group's use from another is sometimes challenging, but often there's a particular turn of phrase that stands out.My site has two examples of how to use that technique, one for the holistic environmental design 'sustainability' movement and one for 'General Systems Theory'. Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -Original Message- From: Alfredo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution Maybe no other Democracy is evolving more than Latin American Democracy. A few months ago I told you about Latin America turns to left and I said that It could be a case of emergence. Process seems to be consolidating, during the last month two left presidents were reelected and a new one was elected. But in my opinion there are other features more important behind left presidents phenomena. It's not as simple as 'apparition' of populist candidates or isolated leaders, in fact in some countries there is a consolidation of solid left democratic parties. But not only are appearing or emerging left parties, members of traditional Liberal and Conservator parties are conforming the right party. It's a very interesting feature of the new Latin American democratic tendency. Maybe is an irony, but left could finally consolidate Democracy in Latin America because political power is no more exclusive of the same white families whom had been dominating politics along two centuries. Right politics tends to deny it, but political debate in Latin America turns around property, is a debate over social classes. Left parties consider necessary to replace current economical model. This region is consider the most inequitable of the world and neoliberalism is increasing it. Huge unemployment, huge subemployment, population with unsatisfied basic needs are pushing. Unfortunatelly, I think left will not return job to people because modern production systems have changed and robots, smart software and biotechnology have replaced the worker. In my opinion It's the biggest obstacle for left consolidation and of course common people just claim for job. Probably left governments will be obligated to appeal to drastic measures. Maybe they are considering two or three strategies: recover by expropriation totally or partially the property of strategic companies recently sold by neoliberal governments, or agree with these foreign companies a redistributions of profits. Of course, land property redistribution claimed since 60's could be implemented. In fact, It already started to occur in two countries and is generating tensions with a couple of developed nations. But those developed countries are unable to invoke to traditional intervention because are not treating with a lonely sheep out of the flock. And it's other important feature: democratic left is creating a block in the region. Phil Henshaw wrote: Marcus wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and even Poland. Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa. It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective cognition is a potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for diverse ideas or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very profitable and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United States. I think the developed world is a really remarkable new thing on earth. It's huge, but still doubles in size and complexity approximately every 20 years. Clearly one of the things it prospers from is an incredible tolerance and n
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
oops, that last calculation was off, leaving out the effect of reincurring the lost opportunity for each one of the 50 reincarnations of the building before it has a use! Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:28 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > >We're simply not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge > >variety of ways. > > > > > Here's one way to delay the apocalypse.. > http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
well... sort of... For one of a million examples, if we multiply our impacts on the earth by adding 10 billion people this century, how much is that relieved by sending 50 or 100 people off to live somewhere else if they can??? Sometimes we should look at the numbers and the timing of things. It may raise more questons than it answers,... but another one I like is estimating the value of the bomb hardening of federal buildings, like the one I'm building now, a big courthouse. It probably adds at least 10 million to the cost. If you guess there are at least 5000 higher priority targets for terrorists in the US than a courthouse in Mississippi, and terrorists wipe out one a year like clock work, that means it'll be at least 5000 years before they get around to mine. Given that the lifetime of the building is expected to be 100 years it's apparent that nature will build and destroy it at least 50 times before a terrorist does, and the lost opportunity cost of $10 million for 5000 years the way you normally calculate it at 3.5% return is 1.8*10^84. That's a lot of bread!! Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:28 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > >We're simply not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge > >variety of ways. > > > > > Here's one way to delay the apocalypse.. > http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Maybe no other Democracy is evolving more than Latin American Democracy. A few months ago I told you about Latin America turns to left and I said that It could be a case of emergence. Process seems to be consolidating, during the last month two left presidents were reelected and a new one was elected. But in my opinion there are other features more important behind left presidents phenomena. It's not as simple as 'apparition' of populist candidates or isolated leaders, in fact in some countries there is a consolidation of solid left democratic parties. But not only are appearing or emerging left parties, members of traditional Liberal and Conservator parties are conforming the right party. It's a very interesting feature of the new Latin American democratic tendency. Maybe is an irony, but left could finally consolidate Democracy in Latin America because political power is no more exclusive of the same white families whom had been dominating politics along two centuries. Right politics tends to deny it, but political debate in Latin America turns around property, is a debate over social classes. Left parties consider necessary to replace current economical model. This region is consider the most inequitable of the world and neoliberalism is increasing it. Huge unemployment, huge subemployment, population with unsatisfied basic needs are pushing. Unfortunatelly, I think left will not return job to people because modern production systems have changed and robots, smart software and biotechnology have replaced the worker. In my opinion It's the biggest obstacle for left consolidation and of course common people just claim for job. Probably left governments will be obligated to appeal to drastic measures. Maybe they are considering two or three strategies: recover by expropriation totally or partially the property of strategic companies recently sold by neoliberal governments, or agree with these foreign companies a redistributions of profits. Of course, land property redistribution claimed since 60's could be implemented. In fact, It already started to occur in two countries and is generating tensions with a couple of developed nations. But those developed countries are unable to invoke to traditional intervention because are not treating with a lonely sheep out of the flock. And it's other important feature: democratic left is creating a block in the region. Phil Henshaw wrote: Marcus wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and even Poland. Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa. It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective cognition is a potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for diverse ideas or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very profitable and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United States. I think the developed world is a really remarkable new thing on earth. It's huge, but still doubles in size and complexity approximately every 20 years. Clearly one of the things it prospers from is an incredible tolerance and need for all different kinds of skills and interests. When you earn money, you have no idea what your customer will do with the product you give to them and neither do they know what you'll do with the money you're paid. It's a marvelous and essential fact of how things work in an economy, that every exchange essentially has no purpose, because the next person in the exchanges of the usual 'earning-spending chain' is entirely free to do whatever they like with what they take away from it. What it does produce is the kind of well oiled machine that no one in a billion years could possibly design, or even actually understand. What takes a while to see is that we are actually in danger of loosing that, because of a certain intolerance built into the other form of economic exchange, the 'saving-investment chain'. That's the one with exponential strings attached to each transaction that form a rigid behavioral requirement for the recipients. You must add a percent to the pile if you're to remain in business. It may well be that settled and cohesive societies that have low social barriers and general tolerance for individual differences, treating everyone as an equal, will more readily respond to change and successfully answer threats to their survival. I think I observe something of the kind in the response of the low crime areas of New York City to the crack epidemic in the 80's. The curves clearly show that they responded much earlier and much more effectively to the scourge that overtook the 'wild cowboy' neighborhoods of East New York, Brownsville, Harlem and the South Bronx. Social structure does matter, but 30 dou
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: >We're simply not making a world that's possible to operate in a huge variety >of ways. > > Here's one way to delay the apocalypse.. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Marcus wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are > > the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and > > even Poland. > > > Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then > self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa. > It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective > cognition is a > potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for > diverse ideas > or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very > profitable > and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United > States. I think the developed world is a really remarkable new thing on earth. It's huge, but still doubles in size and complexity approximately every 20 years. Clearly one of the things it prospers from is an incredible tolerance and need for all different kinds of skills and interests. When you earn money, you have no idea what your customer will do with the product you give to them and neither do they know what you'll do with the money you're paid. It's a marvelous and essential fact of how things work in an economy, that every exchange essentially has no purpose, because the next person in the exchanges of the usual 'earning-spending chain' is entirely free to do whatever they like with what they take away from it. What it does produce is the kind of well oiled machine that no one in a billion years could possibly design, or even actually understand. What takes a while to see is that we are actually in danger of loosing that, because of a certain intolerance built into the other form of economic exchange, the 'saving-investment chain'. That's the one with exponential strings attached to each transaction that form a rigid behavioral requirement for the recipients. You must add a percent to the pile if you're to remain in business. It may well be that settled and cohesive societies that have low social barriers and general tolerance for individual differences, treating everyone as an equal, will more readily respond to change and successfully answer threats to their survival. I think I observe something of the kind in the response of the low crime areas of New York City to the crack epidemic in the 80's. The curves clearly show that they responded much earlier and much more effectively to the scourge that overtook the 'wild cowboy' neighborhoods of East New York, Brownsville, Harlem and the South Bronx. Social structure does matter, but 30 doublings, a reasonable estimate of the multiplication of wealth since the modern age of growth began, is more than the acceleration of a meter per second, a nice slow walk, to the speed of light. The plan for the earth is to keep doubling the size and complexity of our own lives and impacts on the planet every 20 years or so, forever. We call it 'stability'. The question is, what sort of mind notices such curious things? Is it an efficient one, skipping all the non-essential tasks? Is it one that's comfortable with the way things are, is tolerant and helps people get along? Or is it one with a habit of poking around and shaking things up? I observe nature is a mix, and if you don't know all three of those ways of getting along, you're not up to speed. > David Breecker wrote: > > If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some > > minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our > "self," beyond > > which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other" > Not just integrity of self, but more-seriously the reliability of the > leadership of the collective. There's no point in serving an ideal > that isn't individually beneficial if the ideal it serves has been > compromised by corruption.It seems to me a society (or > organization) > with sufficient wealth to nurture the development of complex > skills, and > a culture that valued full utilization of the individual, > could be very > healthy and still protect itself from competing strategies. However, > it's not clear that psychological health and performance are tightly > correlated. I mean, even if corporate workers are miserable, it > depends whether they are operating at 20% or 80% mental efficiency > compared to their peers in a more Utopian system. Self-esteem is very hard to come bye sometimes, and it's equally difficult for others to nourish in an individual that is an unknown commodity. My 19 year old son is in that in-between world, where there's relatively very little evidence of his taking charge, so that his parents are apt to leap at any small sign. It certainly helps to remember that I was a lot worse, though, so I also sympathize with the parents who were prodigies and have normal kids. 'Finding one's self' is not an efficient process, and steadily doubling the amount of learning required for basic functioning in the 'collective' is problematic. I think the 'leadership of the collective', as Mar
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
well.. lost a great post because web mail times out... Marcus, Responding to your post of last night. You said "it is necessary to invest only in those ideas where a broadly-defined payoff can be estimated". But what makes nature so successful in creatively responding to change seems to me to be that she creatively explores every possibility. Of course, metaphorically, it would be a waste of time to read every magazine cover each time you stopped at a news stand for a piece of gum. What I think's important is that you take any first impression you get and push it this way and that in an exploratory way to experimentally see if there's anything of interest hidden behind its strange features. I think your question was whether there are examples of when the principle that growth is destabalizing is a better explanation than what people usually say. That might mean 'better' in offering more useful choices or in terms of offerning more satisfying images. For people who are not interested in or know how to apply general principles, or who just want to talk for pleasure, the anecdotal associations between particulars of familiar situations are probably more satisfying, and they'd need help to learn how to be guided by a general principle. For those who know about general principles, they offer better explanations particularly for situations never encountered before, in this case for where the multiplying internal and external strains of growth are beginning to overwhelm the system's internal and/or external environments. Then connecting cause and effect with the model gives you the new choice to do what nature does most gracefully sometimes, to redirect the feedbacks toward building sustainable systems and away from building unsustainable ones. Almost any person who has run a business is familiar with this switch, gaging internal and external strains that develop with growth and the timing of when to ease back on the self-multiplication at some optimal level. They just don't interpret what they normally do through a general principal for the succession of developmental changes in systems. ... well, I think I got most of it. -- Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are > the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and > even Poland. > Make the group like the individual and vice versa and then self-preservation is group-preservation, and vice versa. It risks making the group slower moving, but a collective cognition is a potential economy of scale. Does one want to optimize for diverse ideas or strong execution on a few ideas? The latter can be very profitable and have excellent survival characteristics, especially in the United States. David Breecker wrote: > If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some > minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our "self," beyond > which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other" Not just integrity of self, but more-seriously the reliability of the leadership of the collective. There's no point in serving an ideal that isn't individually beneficial if the ideal it serves has been compromised by corruption.It seems to me a society (or organization) with sufficient wealth to nurture the development of complex skills, and a culture that valued full utilization of the individual, could be very healthy and still protect itself from competing strategies. However, it's not clear that psychological health and performance are tightly correlated. I mean, even if corporate workers are miserable, it depends whether they are operating at 20% or 80% mental efficiency compared to their peers in a more Utopian system. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
If Paul is correct, this is fascinating. Perhaps there is some minimum threshold of confidence in the integrity of our "self," beyond which we can afford to be tolerant of the "other"? db dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. www.BreeckerAssociates.com Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 Santa Fe:505-690-2335 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: friam@redfish.com Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and even Poland. Paul Paryski -- FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
In my experience those societies that have some homogeneity also are the most tolerant and therefore diverse ideas do emerge. Sweden and even Poland. Paul Paryski FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: > > The fact that we consider what someone else has to say as meaningless > because we don't hear the meaning is a defect in our upbringing in one > way, that no one did for us the hard work of erasing our 'naive > reality' of assuming the world around us to be what it appears to us > to be.What things appear to be is always impoverished in > comparison, and conveys a really false impression to us if we accept > appearances as what's there. > To be productive, it is necessary to invest only in those ideas where a broadly-defined payoff can be estimated. In situations where a listener can't make this estimation, the failure may be from the speaker or the listener, but this doesn't change the fact that infinite resources are not available for reflection. Even if it were, this would create incentives to forever confused people who would inevitably plead to others "Please give me more time because you don't understand -- I have a valid point of view!" > > There's a huge opportunity to change the world for the better by > recognizing that economic growth is permanent positive feedback > system, and as such is destined to fail dramatically at the peak of > its success, like any natural or unnatural system limited by nothing > else but being overwhelmed by it's own feedbacks. I've > said similar things 30 times here, without getting a single question > about it. People obviously think that if they don't get it there's > nothing to get. > What is one historical example of a dramatic failure lacking an explanation that is as accurate or as parsimonious as your way of thinking about positive feedback? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
I think that's what we're talking about, the question of what makes a community naturally resourceful in responding to change, and what makes it dead and senseless. I see both happening right here, for example. It seems to be the *ability to be guided by* a diversity of views that allows discovery to be commonplace rather than disruptive, and enables the community to navigate a complex reality uneventfully.If the whole community has the same view of things it's in danger of being overtaken by unexpected change in the world around it. If the community has a rich variety of views, but they're not heard, it has the same effect. For the 'diversity of intelligences' principle to work, the independent views people have need to be heard. What's deadly about that is that not hearing what someone else is saying is profoundly silent. That's why I keep pointing to the principle that every point of view has some valid basis. That's an automatic 'wake-up call' saying that if you heard some words and it didn't make sense, then you missed what it had to say for you. I think people very commonly don't give each other that much credibility.The fact that we consider what someone else has to say as meaningless because we don't hear the meaning is a defect in our upbringing in one way, that no one did for us the hard work of erasing our 'naive reality' of assuming the world around us to be what it appears to us to be.What things appear to be is always impoverished in comparison, and conveys a really false impression to us if we accept appearances as what's there. For example. There's a huge opportunity to change the world for the better by recognizing that economic growth is permanent positive feedback system, and as such is destined to fail dramatically at the peak of its success, like any natural or unnatural system limited by nothing else but being overwhelmed by it's own feedbacks. I've said similar things 30 times here, without getting a single question about it. People obviously think that if they don't get it there's nothing to get. I think what keeps a marketplace of ideas fluid and responsive, making it open and exploratory, and gives a culture "adaptive management strategies when faced with change or challenges" has to do with having some way of telling when the silence we hear is of our own making. Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:32 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution Historically it is ironic that the most democratic countries seem to be the most homogenous and mono cultural, e.g. the Scandinavian countries. Perhaps, as Jared Diamond concluded, the most important characteristic of a successful society is its ability to choose, democratically or otherwise, adaptive management strategies when faced with change or challenges. Paul Paryski FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Democracy is just an hypocrite and sophist instrument of capitalists but we don't know something better. Not yet. I always vote, I respect Laws and Constitution but only because society needs an order. Alfredo Mike Oliker wrote: The Genius of James Madison was to see that a large country with many factions would be freer from factionalism that a small country would be. The factions would cancel each other out. Factionalism was the greatest threat to democracy that the founders saw. Much the same applies to corporations and the marketplace -- we are saturated with islands of self interest, but have a system which has them cancel each other out -- except insofar as they mostly line up, i.e. except for the widely held positions. It's like filtering out all but the DC signal. Democracy as an evolutionary matter, once it is well established, is pretty good at allowing agreement to emerge from the cacophony of viewpoints. It's rapid spread (from one to more than 100 democracies in two centuries) attests to it's evolutionary superiority. There has never been a time when those in power didn't believe in suppressing all other viewpoints. It is the essence of all non-democracies. In democracies people always want to achieve that, but they they are structurally inhibited. If they ever succeed, then they are no longer have a democracy. "Democracy is Well Established" == "No One can Suppress all other Points of View" Mike Oliker -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:15:31 -0700 From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] US intelligence agencies "discover" blogs and wikis To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Phil Henshaw wrote: > The ideal product of democracy is decision making that reflects a whole understanding of things by integrating all points of view. Trouble develops when the points of view that believe in suppressing all others take over. > I have my doubts about the evolutionary value of democracy in the modern world. For example, in the corporate world the motivation is supplied by stockholders and the points of view are supplied by employees. Worse, the corporate leaders, workers, and stockholders are all different people, disinterested in the welfare of one another. Complicating matters is that the corporations have the ear of government. Democracy in these kinds of conditions requires individual courage and idealism. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Historically it is ironic that the most democratic countries seem to be the most homogenous and mono cultural, e.g. the Scandinavian countries. Perhaps, as Jared Diamond concluded, the most important characteristic of a successful society is its ability to choose, democratically or otherwise, adaptive management strategies when faced with change or challenges. Paul Paryski FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Phil Henshaw wrote: > I'm just suggesting that assuming every point of view has *some* valid > basis is as close to a guarantee of intellectual marketplace > efficiency as you can get. In public decision making we need to be able to make distinctions in shared language. That doesn't imply a price and a number line for idea quality, but it does require the ability to make distinctions and (implicitly) form partially-ordered sets on different dimensions. Luckily, ideas can be traded concurrently and multilaterally so there is no need. We can simply let ideas have relevance in different situations without any implication of universal value until it becomes useful to push the idea into a larger and more critical and contextualized arena. On the extreme end of that are metrics like citation counts and patents. I'd like to think that some great ideas will never be so measured. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
I'm usually a lurker here, rather than poster. Glad to see Doug participating from afar. I think we give all to easy lip service to complex subjects like 'democracy'; or 'sustainability'. Democracy may be social ideal. The reality in varying degrees around the world is the process of 'democratization'. Democracy: 'people power' requires a prior integrated process. Demosophia: 'people wisdom'; also a complex and seemingly undervalued process. Richard Lowenberg On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Douglass Carmichael wrote: > The problem with integrating all points of view is that it creates a single > system, and then the only game in town is, who owns it? Democracy is > actually furthered by incommensurability. > > > > The problem with corporations is, they are not organisms, but owned machines > for creating profit, and the rules of that game seem to lead inexorably to > concentrations of wealth and power ? tyranny. The democracy project is a > project in a state of multiple tensions. Its relation to corporations, > capitalism and markets is not well understood yet. Modeling of this would be > terrific. > > > > It has been said that we have a business culture that knows how to create > wealth, but not how to distribute it. > > > > Democracy I so far as it is based on the idea of the core identity of > persons as being equal, is not in keeping with evolution. It may be that > humans have the capacity, through democracy and the idea that ?all people > are created equal? to opt out of evolution for more human purpose. Evolution > as we know, leads to death and replacement of species. Maybe we don?t want > to go there. > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mike Oliker > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:51 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution > > > > The Genius of James Madison was to see that a large country with many > factions would be freer from factionalism that a small country would be. > The factions would cancel each other out. Factionalism was the greatest > threat to democracy that the founders saw. Much the same applies to > corporations and the marketplace -- we are saturated with islands of self > interest, but have a system which has them cancel each other out -- except > insofar as they mostly line up, i.e. except for the widely held positions. > It's like filtering out all but the DC signal. > > > > Democracy as an evolutionary matter, once it is well established, is pretty > good at allowing agreement to emerge from the cacophony of viewpoints. It's > rapid spread (from one to more than 100 democracies in two centuries) > attests to it's evolutionary superiority. > > > > There has never been a time when those in power didn't believe in > suppressing all other viewpoints. It is the essence of all non-democracies. > In democracies people always want to achieve that, but they they are > structurally inhibited. If they ever succeed, then they are no longer have > a democracy. "Democracy is Well Established" == "No One can Suppress all > other Points of View" > > > > Mike Oliker > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 12/7/2006 > 1:27 AM > > Richard Lowenberg P.O.Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504 505-989-9110, 505-603-5200 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.radlab.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Mike Oliker wrote: > The Genius of James Madison was to see that a large country with many > factions would be freer from factionalism that a small country would be. Seems to me what matters is the number of truly independent factions an individual can be affiliated. A company like Nokia, for example, has a fundamental influence on Finland while only a small fraction in the country have a share in the company. Throughout the world, Microsoft tells hardware suppliers what and when to do it. WalMart can provide `protection' for a supplier at a scale a mere mafia goon couldn't even imagine. A large country has larger organizations that yield more leverage on their government.The individual, vastly overshadowed by her true representatives in government, can thus put aside her posited evolutionary drive to create diversity, and either attempt to rise through the ranks at such a company, move between companies without conviction, or make new viable companies (where viability is strongly correlated to the status quo which is also strongly autocorrelated). Getting back to Phil's original question about why people don't understand or listen to one another: In the evolutionary view, it's posited that individuals acted independently because there was some survival benefit from the diversity. Today the path of least resistance seems to be to suppress that. To be a middle class baby maker in Japan or the United States or Europe, you're better of to conform to corporate requirements. I could see there is some possibility of having the state of China come eat up your corporation, but come on, how many middle class individuals will act with any ferocity in response to an abstract threat like that? I emphasize the individual here because we are ultimately taking about reproductive fitness. People do communicate a great deal. Mobile phones are a huge business and seem to be in constant use. I'd argue that, if anything, there is too much communication and not enough said. So those of us that still have the posited evolutionary drive toward diversity like to try to *make* some by picking each other apart. To illustrate what seems to be the same on first glance is different!Whew! FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
The problem with integrating all points of view is that it creates a single system, and then the only game in town is, who owns it? Democracy is actually furthered by incommensurability. The problem with corporations is, they are not organisms, but owned machines for creating profit, and the rules of that game seem to lead inexorably to concentrations of wealth and power – tyranny. The democracy project is a project in a state of multiple tensions. Its relation to corporations, capitalism and markets is not well understood yet. Modeling of this would be terrific. It has been said that we have a business culture that knows how to create wealth, but not how to distribute it. Democracy I so far as it is based on the idea of the core identity of persons as being equal, is not in keeping with evolution. It may be that humans have the capacity, through democracy and the idea that “all people are created equal” to opt out of evolution for more human purpose. Evolution as we know, leads to death and replacement of species. Maybe we don’t want to go there. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Oliker Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:51 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution The Genius of James Madison was to see that a large country with many factions would be freer from factionalism that a small country would be. The factions would cancel each other out. Factionalism was the greatest threat to democracy that the founders saw. Much the same applies to corporations and the marketplace -- we are saturated with islands of self interest, but have a system which has them cancel each other out -- except insofar as they mostly line up, i.e. except for the widely held positions. It's like filtering out all but the DC signal. Democracy as an evolutionary matter, once it is well established, is pretty good at allowing agreement to emerge from the cacophony of viewpoints. It's rapid spread (from one to more than 100 democracies in two centuries) attests to it's evolutionary superiority. There has never been a time when those in power didn't believe in suppressing all other viewpoints. It is the essence of all non-democracies. In democracies people always want to achieve that, but they they are structurally inhibited. If they ever succeed, then they are no longer have a democracy. "Democracy is Well Established" == "No One can Suppress all other Points of View" Mike Oliker -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 12/7/2006 1:27 AM FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Democracy and evolution
Whether a 'marketplace' for ideas works efficiently or not, or simply supresses any innovation departing from the trusted standards, for example, is not easy to assure. Take the global expectation that multiplying the rate of economic expansion forever assures prosperity. Everything in nature begins with growth but it is also the most unsustainable behavior there is. Because the investment world requires every business and persuades researchers and governments to feed and promote its investment growth plan, the discussion of where it ends is profoundly inhibited. I'm just suggesting that assuming every point of view has *some* valid basis is as close to a guarantee of intellectual marketplace efficiency as you can get. > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > The Genius of James Madison was to see that a large country with many > factions would be freer from factionalism that a small country would be. > The factions would cancel each other out. Factionalism was the greatest > threat to democracy that the founders saw. Much the same applies to > corporations and the marketplace -- we are saturated with islands of self > interest, but have a system which has them cancel each other out -- except > insofar as they mostly line up, i.e. except for the widely held positions. > It's like filtering out all but the DC signal. > > Democracy as an evolutionary matter, once it is well established, is pretty > good at allowing agreement to emerge from the cacophony of viewpoints. It's > rapid spread (from one to more than 100 democracies in two centuries) > attests to it's evolutionary superiority. > > There has never been a time when those in power didn't believe in > suppressing all other viewpoints. It is the essence of all non- democracies. > In democracies people always want to achieve that, but they they are > structurally inhibited. If they ever succeed, then they are no longer have > a democracy. "Democracy is Well Established" == "No One can Suppress all > other Points of View" > > Mike Oliker > > > > - - > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:15:31 -0700 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] US intelligence agencies "discover" blogs and > wikis > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > The ideal product of democracy is decision making that reflects a whole > understanding of things by integrating all points of view. Trouble > develops when the points of view that believe in suppressing all others take > over. > > > I have my doubts about the evolutionary value of democracy in the modern > world. For example, in the corporate world the motivation is supplied > by stockholders and the points of view are supplied by employees. > Worse, the corporate leaders, workers, and stockholders are all > different people, disinterested in the welfare of one another. > Complicating matters is that the corporations have the ear of > government. Democracy in these kinds of conditions requires individual > courage and idealism. > > > > -- Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
