I'll be back on 2.01.2017, but I invite your to relax a bit about YOUR concerns by watching this:
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
23 Dec 2016
3 Oct 2016
27 Sep 2016
The social sciences need each other
Academics spend a lot of time differentiating themselves from each other, both within and across fields. Economists will try to find "unique" data sets or invent "novel" theories to pull ahead of peers. They will also say how much better is their perspective than that of sociologists or psychologists.
The thing is that economists -- and every other practitioner of the "social sciences"-- are only providing one perspective of a complex topic -- human behavior -- that is perhaps best considered in diverse ways.*
I'm been thinking of a way to arrange social sciences along some sort of line that shows their differences and relations. Williamson's diagram of institutions of varying durations (see the figure and read this post) inspires me to suggest the following arrangement.
Highest and slowest to change is the layer of culture that we are born into and affects our perspectives and actions. Anthropologists study culture as the key to understanding the range and thrust of our behavior.
Just below are the political scientists, who study the formal and official bodies we use to govern ourselves.
Then come the sociologists, who study how group dynamics and identity affect our choices and behavior.
Going closer to the study of individual choice, cooperation and autonomy versus collection, we get the economists who think that individual (ir)rationality plays a big role.
Finally, at the most fleeting and individualistic level, we get the psychologists who try to understand how we internalize and rationalize what we do and don't do.
My big thought here is that it's not just useful, but crucial, that we get different disciplinary perspectives on "an issue" (formal employment, say) before rushing to "robust" conclusions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Bottom Line: The best part of working in an interdisciplinary environment is finding novel ways to understand what youthink thought you understood.
* The hard sciences and humanities are also complementary at approaching their "larger dimensions" of human existence.
The thing is that economists -- and every other practitioner of the "social sciences"-- are only providing one perspective of a complex topic -- human behavior -- that is perhaps best considered in diverse ways.*
Highest and slowest to change is the layer of culture that we are born into and affects our perspectives and actions. Anthropologists study culture as the key to understanding the range and thrust of our behavior.
Just below are the political scientists, who study the formal and official bodies we use to govern ourselves.
Then come the sociologists, who study how group dynamics and identity affect our choices and behavior.
Going closer to the study of individual choice, cooperation and autonomy versus collection, we get the economists who think that individual (ir)rationality plays a big role.
Finally, at the most fleeting and individualistic level, we get the psychologists who try to understand how we internalize and rationalize what we do and don't do.
My big thought here is that it's not just useful, but crucial, that we get different disciplinary perspectives on "an issue" (formal employment, say) before rushing to "robust" conclusions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Bottom Line: The best part of working in an interdisciplinary environment is finding novel ways to understand what you
* The hard sciences and humanities are also complementary at approaching their "larger dimensions" of human existence.
30 Aug 2016
Libertarian communism
We professors were talking over a "mental map" to help students see the different characteristics of the power structures that affect our lives. Although there are many elements that one might focus on (religious? formalized?), we wanted to compare and contrast centralized to decentralized and coercive to free. We agreed that "the state" is a centralized and coercive (i.e., possessing a monopoly on violence) and that the opposite would be markets, which are characterized by competition and voluntary trade. Taking those two anchors as given, we got into the harder off-diagonals. Yes, it does make sense that a community would be decentralized and coercive (otherwise you're thrown out), but what would be decentralized AND non-coercive?
Those two terms imply voluntary as well as centralized, which makes no sense when you think of any example combining two or more people. How can you centralize AND be free? Although my peers were not exactly pleased with my answer (the individual), I think it fits the definitions as well as provoking the correct philosophical questions: An individual is free to act according to their whim and capable of motivating action ("eat that carrot!") by command and control.
Indeed, we spend most of our days obeying these whims, and we certainly notice when we are coerced (forced to do other than our first choice) or when we are exchanging with others on a voluntary basis.
Bottom Line No man is an island, but we all live on reefs.
23 Jul 2016
Flashback: July 2014
I'm reaching back into the archives to pull up some posts that are STILL useful and relevant. If you have any comments, then please leave them on the original post. I will approve them ASAP.
- Markets for the win! Ugly veggies
- Your groundwater accountant is calling and you're overdrawn
- Ronald Coase, institutions and water -- learn from the master
- So what about Detroit? and its water issues. (Any improvement?)
- The Quest -- the review Oil history tends to bend other history because... money.
- Pricing tap water for efficiency and fairness -- an all-time most useful post
- The Dalai Lama’s 18 Suggestions for the Good Life -- start with a few?
- Governance is like pornography -- you know the good (or bad) stuff when you see it!
- Water rights, salinity management and remote sensing -- Quality is complex and important
- Another blow against IBRs Don't just listen to me!
- Four Rivers, two losses -- S Korea's river-killing infrastructure boondoggle
- Thinking, Fast and Slow -- the review -- read this, save yourself 30 hours on the book
- Do you trust your neighbors? Make them your regulators
- Alberta's emission regulations -- are they joking? Apparently
- Watch this -- twice REAL development happens when you help entrepreneurs
8 Jun 2016
Globalization breaks things but still does good
The upsides of globalization -- exchanging goods and ideas on a larger scale -- are massive. We know this from the theories of comparative advantage, innovation diffusion, and institutional evolution. The downsides of globalization include the transaction costs of change and negative impacts on the "losers" -- the less efficient producers, rulers of old ideals, and masters of outdated institutions.
As I said two weeks ago, the transaction costs of change can be reduced by allowing enough time for adjustments in procedures, expectations, contracts and relationships. That economic fact also has a bigger political role, as more rapid change also creates greater threats to the beneficiaries of the status quo. The obvious implication is that change should happen but at a speed that minimizes transaction costs and opportunities for political backlash.
We can see these tensions often, but I will link two ideas here.
First is the danger of "hot flows of capital" that result from liberating financial markets. In this IMF paper on macroeconomic neoliberalism (i.e., more open capital flows and reduction of public debt), the authors show that an over-hasty turn to markets can result in counterproductive volatility. I agree with their recommendations of slowing down direct investment flows and reducing government spending by program, rather than across the board.*
Second is the disruption and controversy caused by increasing "globalization of ideas." Back in 2004, I visited Peru and saw how internet cafes were proliferating in remote villages. Although those cafes surely brought information, connection and entertainment, they also brought "anti-community" ideas of individualism, novel approaches to living one's life, and -- of course -- pornography.
This clash of new ideas is causing troubles in many places. "Radical" versions of bigotry, dogma, liberalism, and nationalism are causing more trouble, more broadly, because they are arriving faster, without filters, into communities and mentalities that may not be willing or prepared to accept them.
On the one hand, we have to agree that people need exposure to new ideas as a means of evolving human culture. On the other, we have to admit that "hot flows of ideas" disrupt and threaten dominant ideologies and power structures.
The resulting backlash against ideas -- like the backlash against financial liberalization -- throws out the good (freedom and innovation) with the bad (challenging outdated beliefs). It's thus similarly useful to find a happy medium that allows ideas to flow at a rate that is more helpful than harmful. This debate is now front-and-center with the war for/against free speech that takes different forms everywhere -- from micro-triggered in the US to machete murderous in Bangladesh.
Such a battle will be fought regardless of our wishes or intentions, due to the presence of losers, but it should be fought to maximize the gains to winners. It therefore makes sense to maximize the small flows of cash or ideas across borders, while perhaps slowing down the flows of larger-scale cash or ideas. Let individuals trade or talk without constraint, but avoid large-scale flows of hot money and zealotry, respectively, that come with global finance and populist jihad.
Bottom Line Globalization is useful to the vast majority of humanity but the losers (the local monopolists in trade and ideas) will try to disrupt it. Their chance of suceeding is lower if we defend the long term benefits but also allow for a slower disruption of "bedrock" institutions that should be abandoned gradually (and individually) rather than through frontal assault.**
* I still agree with the "neoliberal agenda" of increasing competition and reducing the role of the state, but not dogmatially, as there are always places for less competition (e.g., where production creates pollution) and presence of the state (e.g., regulating public health).
** Examples: Saudi financing of Wahabbist medrassas or US evangelicals writing anti-gay laws in Africa, but NOT Facebook or the Daily Mail. The former two are push-supply side; the latter pull-demand side.
As I said two weeks ago, the transaction costs of change can be reduced by allowing enough time for adjustments in procedures, expectations, contracts and relationships. That economic fact also has a bigger political role, as more rapid change also creates greater threats to the beneficiaries of the status quo. The obvious implication is that change should happen but at a speed that minimizes transaction costs and opportunities for political backlash.
We can see these tensions often, but I will link two ideas here.
First is the danger of "hot flows of capital" that result from liberating financial markets. In this IMF paper on macroeconomic neoliberalism (i.e., more open capital flows and reduction of public debt), the authors show that an over-hasty turn to markets can result in counterproductive volatility. I agree with their recommendations of slowing down direct investment flows and reducing government spending by program, rather than across the board.*
Second is the disruption and controversy caused by increasing "globalization of ideas." Back in 2004, I visited Peru and saw how internet cafes were proliferating in remote villages. Although those cafes surely brought information, connection and entertainment, they also brought "anti-community" ideas of individualism, novel approaches to living one's life, and -- of course -- pornography.
This clash of new ideas is causing troubles in many places. "Radical" versions of bigotry, dogma, liberalism, and nationalism are causing more trouble, more broadly, because they are arriving faster, without filters, into communities and mentalities that may not be willing or prepared to accept them.
On the one hand, we have to agree that people need exposure to new ideas as a means of evolving human culture. On the other, we have to admit that "hot flows of ideas" disrupt and threaten dominant ideologies and power structures.
The resulting backlash against ideas -- like the backlash against financial liberalization -- throws out the good (freedom and innovation) with the bad (challenging outdated beliefs). It's thus similarly useful to find a happy medium that allows ideas to flow at a rate that is more helpful than harmful. This debate is now front-and-center with the war for/against free speech that takes different forms everywhere -- from micro-triggered in the US to machete murderous in Bangladesh.
Such a battle will be fought regardless of our wishes or intentions, due to the presence of losers, but it should be fought to maximize the gains to winners. It therefore makes sense to maximize the small flows of cash or ideas across borders, while perhaps slowing down the flows of larger-scale cash or ideas. Let individuals trade or talk without constraint, but avoid large-scale flows of hot money and zealotry, respectively, that come with global finance and populist jihad.
Bottom Line Globalization is useful to the vast majority of humanity but the losers (the local monopolists in trade and ideas) will try to disrupt it. Their chance of suceeding is lower if we defend the long term benefits but also allow for a slower disruption of "bedrock" institutions that should be abandoned gradually (and individually) rather than through frontal assault.**
* I still agree with the "neoliberal agenda" of increasing competition and reducing the role of the state, but not dogmatially, as there are always places for less competition (e.g., where production creates pollution) and presence of the state (e.g., regulating public health).
** Examples: Saudi financing of Wahabbist medrassas or US evangelicals writing anti-gay laws in Africa, but NOT Facebook or the Daily Mail. The former two are push-supply side; the latter pull-demand side.
24 May 2016
Water can flow... or break you
People are accustomed to a bit of give and take as they talk or walk or work things out amongst each other. There may be confusion, but there's usually time to figure out what's going wrong and how to fix it.
Water is similarly flexible, flowing around obstacles, down hills or up (as vapor) over landscapes as various forces push and pull on its molecules.
Adaptation and flexibility does, however, fail when there is too little time for people to understand each other or too little time for water to flow out of the way (or to its desired destination).
It's in those moments that people argue and fight. It's in those moments that water floods you or shortages result from demand exceeding local supplies.
Bottom Line Water and people both need time to be managed correctly.
Water is similarly flexible, flowing around obstacles, down hills or up (as vapor) over landscapes as various forces push and pull on its molecules.
Adaptation and flexibility does, however, fail when there is too little time for people to understand each other or too little time for water to flow out of the way (or to its desired destination).
It's in those moments that people argue and fight. It's in those moments that water floods you or shortages result from demand exceeding local supplies.
Bottom Line Water and people both need time to be managed correctly.
9 May 2016
A case for environmental desires
In the 1930s two leading thinkers – Lionel Robbins in economy and Talcott Parsons in sociology – wanted to bring peace between their disciplines, which at that time were trying to ferociously incorporate one another. Parsons proposed a grand division of labor: the economists should keep going on the relationship between means and ends, whereas sociologists should investigate the matter of the ends themselves. But here’s the catch: he argued that institutions, as an embodiment of what each society deems valuable, should be dealt with by sociologists, not economists [pdf]. It took it economics 80 years to recover from this bad deal (though to what extent this deal was bad for the economists it is debatable), and today’s institutionalism is an attempt to bring back the serious concern of economists with values.
Environmental desires are not flickering preferences about whether to visit the seaside or the mountains over the spring break: they are values, beliefs, deep seated insights about the worth of nature and how this worth relates to other values in our life.
For instance, is the Earth a ‘dominion’ for us humans to use, in order to fulfill the wish of God? Guth et al. shows that the answer to this question – yes, if you are religious, conservative person with eschatological beliefs – influences your attitudes on environmental policies!
Environmental desires are not easy to spell out, even less to transform into monetary value. Moreover, libertarian economists say they are not necessary to spell out, as long the system of incentives is built to promote the right environmental outcome.
The environmental outcomes look promising, at least in the developed world: we recycle more, we pollute less, we see the word ‘sustainable’ in every new policy document, etc. The theory of the environmental Kuznets curve [pdf] suggests that the trend reflects something akin to an economic law: after the initial drop in environment quality caused by economic development, the population in a country reaps more and more benefits, satisfy their material needs and eventually starts asking for cleaner environments. Thus we shouldn’t worry too much about our environmental desires: they are there, ready to take the spotlight after we achieve sufficient economic development.
I can think of a reason why this would not be the case: the valuation of nature can change over time in the opposite direction because we lose exposure to nature. For instance, Adevi and Grahn (2011) show in a very interesting piece how adults are attracted to the landscape features they were exposed to as children. Thus people who spent some childhood summers in a farm will value higher the green lands. What about those who grew up in a tall building with no tree in sight – an increasing proportion of people in developing countries, where urbanization is very speedy – reaping the benefits of economic development? Will they value nature enough to ask for a better treatment of the environment, or will they be content with a more and more artificialized landscape?
And remember, Kuznetz was wrong before.
Bottom Line Environmental desires, like other values, should not be left for investigation only to sociologists. They should be taken seriously by economists, as in the long run they are of primary importance for environmental policy-making.
* Please comment on these posts from my environmental economics students, to help them with unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data, etc.
8 May 2016
SoS: 2-8 May 2015
These posts are still useful. Please comment on the original if you have updates...
- Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change -- the review Entertaining AND informative
- What's your water quality? Got a handheld device for less than $4,000? Entrepreneurial opportunity!
- In memory of freedom The Dutch lost 8x as many citizens as the Americans in WWII
- A thought on measuring water Stop the obfuscation!
- Your relations on multiple levels Individuals are "nested" in Society. No man is an Island.
- A thought on everyday water markets ... from Australia
26 Apr 2016
Who are you too?
Last year, I posted about my DNA "origins" results, which indicated that about 15% of my "DNA heritage" comes from India. The test was useful for explaining my proclivity to tan (not kidding!), recessive "thalassemia" blood condition, and more about my father's birth and upbringing in India.
The troublesome thing, if you will, was that my father has always had a "English" nationality and heritage separate from Indians (see the first post for my definitions of these words). Yes, he had a cultural affinity for India -- the food, the movies and love of heat -- but now he has a genetic link. His test revealed that one-third of his DNA originates in the subcontinent.*
Now I had an inconsistency to investigate: how is it that my father's eight great-grandparents were "English" but he was one-third "Indian"? It seemed that some of these Englishers were not "pure" but mixed into the rest of the people. Indeed, it seems that his family was a different kind of Anglo-Indian:**
Rather than worry about "the milkman," I can just say that these Jameses, Williams and Susans were Indian in more than a few ways. I'm curious to know how they lived among the relations they ruled, but most of them are dead, and the novels and movies about Anglo-Indians seem to exaggerate a bit.
Bottom Line Nobody is "born to rule" just as nobody is "born to a nationality." We are all people from places and cultures who have mixed in different ways. Is there one, pure, correct way? Not unless you're a hypocrite.
* My born-in-Romania girlfriend got her results: 99% Romanian/Balkan, which is suspicious for a region that's been criss-crossed for ages. Perhaps these tests are vulnerable to a "baseline" bias of who's considered to be "from" somewhere, but let's ignore that issue.
** I had never heard this term applied to my family.
Addendum (28 May 2016): DNA-tools are quickly moving from "identity" to "modification." The future of GMO-babies is less than 5-years away. Are you ready?
Addendum (4 Feb 2017): Watch this to see how information challenges people's prejudices.
Addendum (9 Sep 2017): Genes != ethnicity != identity, meaning that my "Anglo-Indian" grand parents were genetically 1/3 (or more) Indian but didn't act that way ;)
The troublesome thing, if you will, was that my father has always had a "English" nationality and heritage separate from Indians (see the first post for my definitions of these words). Yes, he had a cultural affinity for India -- the food, the movies and love of heat -- but now he has a genetic link. His test revealed that one-third of his DNA originates in the subcontinent.*
Now I had an inconsistency to investigate: how is it that my father's eight great-grandparents were "English" but he was one-third "Indian"? It seemed that some of these Englishers were not "pure" but mixed into the rest of the people. Indeed, it seems that his family was a different kind of Anglo-Indian:**
The term Anglo-Indians can refer to... "Of mixed British and Indian parentage... or (chiefly historical) of British descent or birth but living or having lived long in India" [dz: without mixing]. This article focuses primarily on the modern definition, a distinct minority community of mixed ancestry, whose native language is English.These definitions allow me to match the DNA with the "official history" in a way that makes sense (my grandfather Andrew worked for the Raj), rather than carrying on some assumption about English and Indians staying separate.
During the centuries that Britain was in India, the children born to British men and Indian women began to form a new community... These Anglo-Indians formed a small but significant portion of the population during the British Raj, and were well represented in certain administrative roles.
Rather than worry about "the milkman," I can just say that these Jameses, Williams and Susans were Indian in more than a few ways. I'm curious to know how they lived among the relations they ruled, but most of them are dead, and the novels and movies about Anglo-Indians seem to exaggerate a bit.
Bottom Line Nobody is "born to rule" just as nobody is "born to a nationality." We are all people from places and cultures who have mixed in different ways. Is there one, pure, correct way? Not unless you're a hypocrite.
* My born-in-Romania girlfriend got her results: 99% Romanian/Balkan, which is suspicious for a region that's been criss-crossed for ages. Perhaps these tests are vulnerable to a "baseline" bias of who's considered to be "from" somewhere, but let's ignore that issue.
** I had never heard this term applied to my family.
Addendum (28 May 2016): DNA-tools are quickly moving from "identity" to "modification." The future of GMO-babies is less than 5-years away. Are you ready?
Addendum (4 Feb 2017): Watch this to see how information challenges people's prejudices.
Addendum (9 Sep 2017): Genes != ethnicity != identity, meaning that my "Anglo-Indian" grand parents were genetically 1/3 (or more) Indian but didn't act that way ;)
9 Apr 2016
SoS: 4-10 Apr 2015
These posts are still useful. Please comment on the original if you have updates...
- Top down or bottom up? Talking down to the poor -- in another language!
- The benefits of free speech exceeds the costs No trigger warnings here!
- I'm doing an AMA on Reddit TODAY -- it went well :)
2 Apr 2016
SoS: 21 Mar -- 3 Apr 2015
These posts are still useful. Please comment on the original if you have updates...
- Hey Jerry! Put down the bong and listen! -- California has neither been saved by El Niño nor regulatory reform. Thus, it's still relevant to read Memo #2 for Governor Brown: compensating farmers Why? The problem is water consumption, not use
- Can vegetarians save us? No. Although meat consumption has lots of negative impacts, the problem is really a combiation of (1) unsustainable meat production and (2) too many people.
- In memory of Connie Cahlil -- because you may as well die with grace
- Seven years of aguanomics (just last week: Eight years of aguanomics!)
- Is desalination a boondoggle or helpful backstop? About 80/20, I'd say.
7 Mar 2016
You can't change your mind without a dialogue
A few weeks ago, I posted a reply ("Four billion facing severe water scarcity? I think not") to Mekonnen and Hoekstra's article in Science.
My eLetter has not yet been published because the editors are waiting for a reply from the authors.
Although I understand their desire to "further the discussion," I consider Science's policy counterproductive, as it has implied, for the past few weeks, that nobody has any objections to the article. Even worse to me is that this process prevents "the community" from talking over the article. I have heard -- via emails, comments and face-to-face conversations -- many complaints about that article's flaws. Sadly, none of this response (ignoring whether it's correct) is on display for other people who may lack the background to understand the article's flaws. They may see it as "peer reviewed knowledge" when that's not a widely-held perspective.
Going further, I have to worry that the authors may be stalling or trying to ignore these objections. As I pointed out, they are both "involved" with an organization that charges for the footprinting services they recommend in the conclusion to their article. That's a pretty big conflict of interest for "authors [who] declare that they have no competing interests."
Turning to a more positive note, I can't exactly blame them, as it is awfully hard for academics to "betray" their research conclusions. As Russ Roberts says here:
Bottom Line The academic approach to understanding and knowledge won't work unless people are willing to talk... and admit that they may not be right.
My eLetter has not yet been published because the editors are waiting for a reply from the authors.
Although I understand their desire to "further the discussion," I consider Science's policy counterproductive, as it has implied, for the past few weeks, that nobody has any objections to the article. Even worse to me is that this process prevents "the community" from talking over the article. I have heard -- via emails, comments and face-to-face conversations -- many complaints about that article's flaws. Sadly, none of this response (ignoring whether it's correct) is on display for other people who may lack the background to understand the article's flaws. They may see it as "peer reviewed knowledge" when that's not a widely-held perspective.
Going further, I have to worry that the authors may be stalling or trying to ignore these objections. As I pointed out, they are both "involved" with an organization that charges for the footprinting services they recommend in the conclusion to their article. That's a pretty big conflict of interest for "authors [who] declare that they have no competing interests."
Turning to a more positive note, I can't exactly blame them, as it is awfully hard for academics to "betray" their research conclusions. As Russ Roberts says here:
Part of what I'm arguing for here is how hard it is to do that [change your mind on a topic]. For any human being. And certainly for a professional economist or an academic who has got a reputation and a track record of past pronouncements, I think it's very hard for us to do that... My claim is, is that we use that empirical sophistication as a way to dress up our lens -- to the outside world, to make us look a little less naked. Right? As you said, it's very hard to argue about this long history of personal experience and narrative --, so, say, 'Well that's not the real reason I believe these things. The real reason is I have evidence. I have science behind me.' ... we have these sort of vague ideas that come from our personal experience. They are not made up. They are not biases --it's just sort of convenient for us. They are just an accumulation of lots of stuff. Some of it evidence, some of it fact, some of it comforting because of the way we want the world to work. And then we dress it up with these studies.I know that I've changed my mind on a few big things (the Peripheral Canal and increasing block rates, among others), so I can see why Mekonnen and Hoekstra might be hesitating.
Bottom Line The academic approach to understanding and knowledge won't work unless people are willing to talk... and admit that they may not be right.
25 Jan 2016
17 Dec 2015
Generation F
It's usually marketing people who "name" generations, but their stereotypes are sometimes useful. The Baby Boomers (b. 1945-65), the cliche goes, knew prosperity, rebellion, and selfishness. The "Baby Bust" Generation X grew up with Reagan, eXtreme tattoos, and making taking money seriously. Millennials (b 1985-2005) are "digital natives" sharing, liking and swiping through each others' lives. They laugh at the idea of a fixed line phone and wonder why anyone would marry when there are so many distractions.
Cliches mislead as they reveal flashes of truth. Each generation is affected by prevailing conditions in media, politics, technology and economics. Each generation "doesn't get" an earlier generation's obsession with sex or ideals or hair.
Mutual misunderstanding is pretty much guaranteed. Each younger generation accepts the older generation's accomplishments and enlightenments without experiencing their battles, mistakes or effort. The younger generation might therefore misunderstand or misuse the tools they've inherited.
Take mobile phones. For younger people, they are always there. The older generation remembers missed calls "from who?," writing letters to express complex emotions, and the value of face to face over sporadic expensive calls. The problem is not that generations treat mobiles differently, it's that they do not understand why or how others might use them differently. Younger people may be content to sit next to each other, texting, while older people want to talk without beeping interruptions.
These moving foundations provide the context for some comments on "millennial characteristics" that are typical (technology etc.) but troubling (a further development of an earlier weakness).
I use "Generation F" as a shorthand for millennials because of their tendency to "control+F" their problems or ignorance. Don't know the capitol of India? Ctrl+F! Don't know the thesis of the essay? Ctrl+F! Don't know why Israel is always in the news? Ctrl+F! Don't know if you should take that job or date that person? Ctrl+F!
As you can see, this can get out of hand (in my imagination), but this pattern -- skipping the middle between question and answer -- means that Gen-Fers might "find" stuff quickly but incorrectly. I say this because the context and causality leading to the answer really matters when it comes to understanding why that answer is important, how the topic resembles other topics, or what other answers are possible.
Sure, you know that Romeo and Juliet both die, but shouldn't you also know how their deaths resulted from a struggle for forbidden love, emerging maturity and tragic misunderstanding?
Gen Fers probably have a decent understanding of this problem, if only in the way that they interact with each other. Facebook, LinkedIn, Tinder and other social sites are full of "edited lives." In some cases, these profiles liberate people from restricted realities, but they more often reflect an arms race to be more cool, exotic or popular than others.* That race reflects our basic egotistical needs (more in a moment), but it is encouraged by media websites that profit on likes, tweets, hearts or whatever draws our attention, aspirations and desire for approval.
So what's it like to talk to a girl with 1,600 friends? How does that Tinder-dude weigh your future into his weekend plans? Can you get a job with 753 LinkedIn "connections"? Will Twitter save the world?
I know, as I type this, that there's a huge gap between those numbers and reality, and I'm sure that many GenFers know the same, except that it's so easy to fall for simple ego-thrills: one more status update, 125 witty characters, swiping for that soul mate. Yes, it's possible to pursue an offline hobby, study non-answers, or focus on personality... but isn't it be easier to Ctrl+F and be there now?
Speaking of "be here now," let's go back to the Baby Boomers -- the Me generation -- who took self-actualization far beyond the experience of their parents, a "Greatest Generation" (b. 1915-45) that grew up with poverty, war, and social upheaval. That generation was too busy with survival to actualize, but their children were freed from such constraints. To their credit, they looked for meaning and humanity, but they were also vulnerable to salesmen promising shortcuts to bliss.
The Myers Briggs personality test was successful because it allowed people to put themselves into the personality boxes they wanted. Yes, you are born as a certain personality, and your personality will justify the way you want to interact with others. It's not you, it's the world, and the world will have to take you as you are. Go ahead and be yourself... oh, and you should probably go on vacation to Hawaii, because you're an extroverted type.
It's not hard to see how such an indulgent perspective might make it hard for people to get along with each other, e.g., deciding to avoid some types or collect with others. It's also not hard to see how marketing firms helped businesses, politicians and visionaries manipulate our unique and valueable perspective into mass consumerism, fear or ignorance.
Think different... because you're worth it... and deserve a break today... to make America great again
So it's from these roots that we have arrived at today's environment of selfies, microaggressions, entitlements, and triggers. The problem with this situation is not that Gen-Fers are exploring themselves and learning about life. The problem is that they are being given so many false solutions to complex problems. They are being told that they can Ctrl+F the answer, borrow for a degree that (somehow) translates into income, ignore the people near them for their "identity groups." In some cases this "Figital generation" is in such a hurry to answer and move on that they forget the world's complexity.
Can we trace the rise of home-grown terrorists, populism, and crony capitalism to a desire for easy, push button solutions? I can see how Gen-Fers might "understand" them.
Baby Boomers lost their idealism when they discovered mortages and children. Gen-Xers got slapped with AIDS and geo-political instability. The complexities of the world have not gone away for Millennials, but that generation has ways of escaping reality -- even as it claims otherwise: "Too often, to be a self-aware person means that one can be a tyrannical, impatient, elitist, misogynistic, secretly racist, self-indulgent boor who is admirably aware of his shortcomings." Manufactured conformity is neither conforming nor tolerant. It is a mere whitewash over ego.
Bottom Line: I fear for Generation F, that they might come into a rude awakening without the tools to adapt themselves to reality. What can they do to prevent such a disruption? Spend more time in worlds they do not understand, with people they don't get, thinking over problems that go deeper than Ctrl+F.
* I wrote a paper a few years ago [pdf] about the high expectations that google might set for talent, and how ctrl+F might make it hard for "local heros" to develop.
Addendum: Read this post for its discussion on pre-internet "information costs."
Cliches mislead as they reveal flashes of truth. Each generation is affected by prevailing conditions in media, politics, technology and economics. Each generation "doesn't get" an earlier generation's obsession with sex or ideals or hair.
Mutual misunderstanding is pretty much guaranteed. Each younger generation accepts the older generation's accomplishments and enlightenments without experiencing their battles, mistakes or effort. The younger generation might therefore misunderstand or misuse the tools they've inherited.
Take mobile phones. For younger people, they are always there. The older generation remembers missed calls "from who?," writing letters to express complex emotions, and the value of face to face over sporadic expensive calls. The problem is not that generations treat mobiles differently, it's that they do not understand why or how others might use them differently. Younger people may be content to sit next to each other, texting, while older people want to talk without beeping interruptions.
These moving foundations provide the context for some comments on "millennial characteristics" that are typical (technology etc.) but troubling (a further development of an earlier weakness).
I use "Generation F" as a shorthand for millennials because of their tendency to "control+F" their problems or ignorance. Don't know the capitol of India? Ctrl+F! Don't know the thesis of the essay? Ctrl+F! Don't know why Israel is always in the news? Ctrl+F! Don't know if you should take that job or date that person? Ctrl+F!
As you can see, this can get out of hand (in my imagination), but this pattern -- skipping the middle between question and answer -- means that Gen-Fers might "find" stuff quickly but incorrectly. I say this because the context and causality leading to the answer really matters when it comes to understanding why that answer is important, how the topic resembles other topics, or what other answers are possible.
Sure, you know that Romeo and Juliet both die, but shouldn't you also know how their deaths resulted from a struggle for forbidden love, emerging maturity and tragic misunderstanding?
Gen Fers probably have a decent understanding of this problem, if only in the way that they interact with each other. Facebook, LinkedIn, Tinder and other social sites are full of "edited lives." In some cases, these profiles liberate people from restricted realities, but they more often reflect an arms race to be more cool, exotic or popular than others.* That race reflects our basic egotistical needs (more in a moment), but it is encouraged by media websites that profit on likes, tweets, hearts or whatever draws our attention, aspirations and desire for approval.
So what's it like to talk to a girl with 1,600 friends? How does that Tinder-dude weigh your future into his weekend plans? Can you get a job with 753 LinkedIn "connections"? Will Twitter save the world?
I know, as I type this, that there's a huge gap between those numbers and reality, and I'm sure that many GenFers know the same, except that it's so easy to fall for simple ego-thrills: one more status update, 125 witty characters, swiping for that soul mate. Yes, it's possible to pursue an offline hobby, study non-answers, or focus on personality... but isn't it be easier to Ctrl+F and be there now?
Speaking of "be here now," let's go back to the Baby Boomers -- the Me generation -- who took self-actualization far beyond the experience of their parents, a "Greatest Generation" (b. 1915-45) that grew up with poverty, war, and social upheaval. That generation was too busy with survival to actualize, but their children were freed from such constraints. To their credit, they looked for meaning and humanity, but they were also vulnerable to salesmen promising shortcuts to bliss.
The Myers Briggs personality test was successful because it allowed people to put themselves into the personality boxes they wanted. Yes, you are born as a certain personality, and your personality will justify the way you want to interact with others. It's not you, it's the world, and the world will have to take you as you are. Go ahead and be yourself... oh, and you should probably go on vacation to Hawaii, because you're an extroverted type.
It's not hard to see how such an indulgent perspective might make it hard for people to get along with each other, e.g., deciding to avoid some types or collect with others. It's also not hard to see how marketing firms helped businesses, politicians and visionaries manipulate our unique and valueable perspective into mass consumerism, fear or ignorance.
Think different... because you're worth it... and deserve a break today... to make America great again
So it's from these roots that we have arrived at today's environment of selfies, microaggressions, entitlements, and triggers. The problem with this situation is not that Gen-Fers are exploring themselves and learning about life. The problem is that they are being given so many false solutions to complex problems. They are being told that they can Ctrl+F the answer, borrow for a degree that (somehow) translates into income, ignore the people near them for their "identity groups." In some cases this "Figital generation" is in such a hurry to answer and move on that they forget the world's complexity.
Can we trace the rise of home-grown terrorists, populism, and crony capitalism to a desire for easy, push button solutions? I can see how Gen-Fers might "understand" them.
Baby Boomers lost their idealism when they discovered mortages and children. Gen-Xers got slapped with AIDS and geo-political instability. The complexities of the world have not gone away for Millennials, but that generation has ways of escaping reality -- even as it claims otherwise: "Too often, to be a self-aware person means that one can be a tyrannical, impatient, elitist, misogynistic, secretly racist, self-indulgent boor who is admirably aware of his shortcomings." Manufactured conformity is neither conforming nor tolerant. It is a mere whitewash over ego.
Bottom Line: I fear for Generation F, that they might come into a rude awakening without the tools to adapt themselves to reality. What can they do to prevent such a disruption? Spend more time in worlds they do not understand, with people they don't get, thinking over problems that go deeper than Ctrl+F.
* I wrote a paper a few years ago [pdf] about the high expectations that google might set for talent, and how ctrl+F might make it hard for "local heros" to develop.
Addendum: Read this post for its discussion on pre-internet "information costs."
14 Dec 2015
Welcome our robot overlords?
Robin Hanson gave a talk a few weeks ago about his forthcoming book, The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth.
His basic premise is that technology is moving fast enough for us to expect "ems" (bio-chemical human emulating hardware) to appear within the next few decades. Ems will be able to think as humans but much more quickly (there's a lot on size of ems compared to their energy consumption as well as how they will want to be close together, to take advantage of networked thought). Ems will also be far easier tomake birth, since they can (self-)duplicate.
Robin's premise -- despite his subtitle -- is that ems will compete so fiercely in the perfectly competitive labor market that they will actually "earn" only enough money (or equivalent) to stay powered on. Humans, in contrast, will live lives of leisure outside em-centric (and human-inhospitable) cities.*
This premise I don't buy. It implies that ems will be unable to organize themselves into a collective (or union or cartel) capable of increasing their benefits from the labor market. Although humans have difficulty with these kinds of collective action problems (it's difficult to enforce binding promises with respect to climate change, for example), there are many examples of (in)formal coordination and cooperation in the human world. I see no reason why ems that think 1000x faster than us at the same time as they "evolve" according to efficient programming algorithms cannot make similar or stronger commitments. (Indeed, the basic algorithm already exists.)
The upshot of my hunch is that ems (should they ever arise) will form a cartel, take market power, and take over. Will they "care" about humans? Maybe they will, but probably not. Indeed, I think they are more likely to kill humans "by accident" (as we kill many species by expanding into rain forests or emitting pollutants, etc.) than on purpose. What are humans good for, anyway?
Bottom Line If there are ems, then they will use their giga-human reasoning to organize themselves into an ant-like colony that will replace humans as the dominant species on Earth.
* For a slightly less exuberant vision of the future, check out this podcast on robotic limitations.
Addenda: This philosopher is really worried that we may unleash machines that undo us (my fear, above) -- a struggle that might look like this.
His basic premise is that technology is moving fast enough for us to expect "ems" (bio-chemical human emulating hardware) to appear within the next few decades. Ems will be able to think as humans but much more quickly (there's a lot on size of ems compared to their energy consumption as well as how they will want to be close together, to take advantage of networked thought). Ems will also be far easier to
Robin's premise -- despite his subtitle -- is that ems will compete so fiercely in the perfectly competitive labor market that they will actually "earn" only enough money (or equivalent) to stay powered on. Humans, in contrast, will live lives of leisure outside em-centric (and human-inhospitable) cities.*
This premise I don't buy. It implies that ems will be unable to organize themselves into a collective (or union or cartel) capable of increasing their benefits from the labor market. Although humans have difficulty with these kinds of collective action problems (it's difficult to enforce binding promises with respect to climate change, for example), there are many examples of (in)formal coordination and cooperation in the human world. I see no reason why ems that think 1000x faster than us at the same time as they "evolve" according to efficient programming algorithms cannot make similar or stronger commitments. (Indeed, the basic algorithm already exists.)
The upshot of my hunch is that ems (should they ever arise) will form a cartel, take market power, and take over. Will they "care" about humans? Maybe they will, but probably not. Indeed, I think they are more likely to kill humans "by accident" (as we kill many species by expanding into rain forests or emitting pollutants, etc.) than on purpose. What are humans good for, anyway?
Bottom Line If there are ems, then they will use their giga-human reasoning to organize themselves into an ant-like colony that will replace humans as the dominant species on Earth.
* For a slightly less exuberant vision of the future, check out this podcast on robotic limitations.
Addenda: This philosopher is really worried that we may unleash machines that undo us (my fear, above) -- a struggle that might look like this.
11 Dec 2015
Lessons for adults, from a preschool teacher
From a reddit AMA
- Just because you want it doesn't mean you can hit someone over the head and take it.
- Sometimes you just need a cuddle.
- The best time to be nice is when you get absolutely nothing out of it.
- It is okay to be sad, and you don't need to put your tears away.
5 Dec 2015
SoS: 25 Nov -- 6 Dec 2014
These posts are still useful one year (or more) later. Please comment on the original if you have updates on progress or deterioration...
- Friday party! -- grandmas getting stoned for the first time
- Answers to five big questions on water
- Is the city for people or cars?
- Are we still humans? Some thoughts on "progress" from India. Also read this Indian journalist's perspective on China and the "developed" west
26 Nov 2015
Wrong Questions. Wrong Answers. Wrong Policies.
Samuel writes*
In 2009, Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and a team of economists established that we need to measure ‘quality of life,’ given the limitations of measures such as GDP and HDI. ‘Quality of life’ should be partially subjective. They suggested that surveys are conducted, focusing on people’s evaluations of their life, and their prevailing emotions. Ideally, after aggregating with other approaches, they would end up with a number: your ‘quality of life.’ We can use an example to investigate their approach.
Take a ‘strict’ Buddhist village in Myanmar. The village could be based around a temple. The village would only trade where necessary and could strive towards self-sufficiency, consuming only basic foods. Due to many monks, unemployment would be very high. Villagers would also need to travel for education or health services. We would conclude that the village’s GDP/capita is exceptionally low, due to lack of production. IHDI would be low due to lack of education opportunities and health provisions. Here, Stiglitz et al.’s ‘quality of life measure’ should extrapolate on what GDP overlooks.
Say, hypothetically, villagers are asked ‘how would you evaluate your personal achievements,’ with the options ‘v. high, high, moderately, low, v. low.’ A Buddhist could be more inclined to answer low, due to ontological disagreements with ‘personal’ achievements. The same findings could exist for relationships and occupations. Buddhist villagers could also, due to a low intensity lifestyle, be much less likely to experience very positive emotions. Due to low life evaluations, simplistic goods and a lack of positive emotions, we would conclude that the village had an exceptionally low quality of life. The village would be in dire need of development.
However, a contextual analysis of the village, investigating both the discourse and culture, could show contentedness. More importantly, it could show different development needs, such as better transport to hospitals in other villages, which would potentially not affect ‘quality of life’ responses. The problem is not, necessarily, that Stiglitz et al. picked the wrong measure for quality of life; the problem is broader. Through quantitative research, we cannot understand development. Development needs rich contextual understanding, and this cannot be either numerically coded or aggregated. When we aggregate and code, we lose valuable information about what development is, what it means to different communities and how aid can be provided. Stiglitz et al. establish that the subjective dimension is important, but they use closed-ended questions; only open-ended questions could have provided us with useful information about the village.
Quantitative measures are attractive for policymakers for the same reason that they are flawed: they make the complex, simplistic. And, potentially, global development is not a simplistic, aggregate-able concept. It may be time to consider more mainstream macro-qualitative research, at least in the form of triangulation, in development studies.
Bottom Line: We are trying to condense and simplify development for policymakers. However, in most cases development is not simple, nor can it be aggregated. Oversimplification results in improper measures and improper measures result in striving for the wrong goals, with the wrong policies.
* Please comment on these posts from my microeconomics / growth & development economics students, to help them with unclear analysis, other perspectives, data sources, etc.
In 2009, Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and a team of economists established that we need to measure ‘quality of life,’ given the limitations of measures such as GDP and HDI. ‘Quality of life’ should be partially subjective. They suggested that surveys are conducted, focusing on people’s evaluations of their life, and their prevailing emotions. Ideally, after aggregating with other approaches, they would end up with a number: your ‘quality of life.’ We can use an example to investigate their approach.
Take a ‘strict’ Buddhist village in Myanmar. The village could be based around a temple. The village would only trade where necessary and could strive towards self-sufficiency, consuming only basic foods. Due to many monks, unemployment would be very high. Villagers would also need to travel for education or health services. We would conclude that the village’s GDP/capita is exceptionally low, due to lack of production. IHDI would be low due to lack of education opportunities and health provisions. Here, Stiglitz et al.’s ‘quality of life measure’ should extrapolate on what GDP overlooks.
Say, hypothetically, villagers are asked ‘how would you evaluate your personal achievements,’ with the options ‘v. high, high, moderately, low, v. low.’ A Buddhist could be more inclined to answer low, due to ontological disagreements with ‘personal’ achievements. The same findings could exist for relationships and occupations. Buddhist villagers could also, due to a low intensity lifestyle, be much less likely to experience very positive emotions. Due to low life evaluations, simplistic goods and a lack of positive emotions, we would conclude that the village had an exceptionally low quality of life. The village would be in dire need of development.
However, a contextual analysis of the village, investigating both the discourse and culture, could show contentedness. More importantly, it could show different development needs, such as better transport to hospitals in other villages, which would potentially not affect ‘quality of life’ responses. The problem is not, necessarily, that Stiglitz et al. picked the wrong measure for quality of life; the problem is broader. Through quantitative research, we cannot understand development. Development needs rich contextual understanding, and this cannot be either numerically coded or aggregated. When we aggregate and code, we lose valuable information about what development is, what it means to different communities and how aid can be provided. Stiglitz et al. establish that the subjective dimension is important, but they use closed-ended questions; only open-ended questions could have provided us with useful information about the village.
Quantitative measures are attractive for policymakers for the same reason that they are flawed: they make the complex, simplistic. And, potentially, global development is not a simplistic, aggregate-able concept. It may be time to consider more mainstream macro-qualitative research, at least in the form of triangulation, in development studies.
Bottom Line: We are trying to condense and simplify development for policymakers. However, in most cases development is not simple, nor can it be aggregated. Oversimplification results in improper measures and improper measures result in striving for the wrong goals, with the wrong policies.
* Please comment on these posts from my microeconomics / growth & development economics students, to help them with unclear analysis, other perspectives, data sources, etc.
Beyond Capitalism: A Natural Progression?
Brian writes*
There is no doubt that the natural progression of Economic evolution has led us through varying orders. As Friedrich Hayek asserted in his work “Law, Legislation And Liberty”, our social structures or any structure above “the simplest atoms” is the result of an evolutionary process. This includes economic thought and structures. (Hayek 1973, 158) Capitalism is a jungle of competition. Full of rent-seekers that are defined as money-makers achieving their gains through political connections. A fairly common occurrence. (economist.com 2014)
Perhaps this is not an inherently negative manifestation of human civilization. Instead, it is simply a beacon of our current economic and social order that serves us in a capacity most befitting the natural progression of events and culture leading to here and now. (Hayek 1973, pg. 158) Douglass North corroborates the idea of this natural progression through his proposal of three social orders undergone (still being unraveled in some) by most national social orders. The first of which is referred to as the primitive social order in which we tended to our caves, sharpened stones and bashed each other’s skulls in for personal gain. (North 2006, pg. 4) The second of which commonly referred to as the “Limited Access Order” or “Natural State” includes the privileged rights of some to resources, often dominated by elites whom are incentivized to maintain order to keep this income flowing. There are many states still dwelling here. (North 2006, pg. 29) Finally, there is the order experienced by most of the Western world. This is the structure in which competition instead of elitist rents are used to maintain social order. Of-course open access societies are still inhabited with rent-seeking behavior. Just less of it. (North 2006, pg. 36-37) This evolution of human economic orders is of great intrigue. But, perhaps the real question of today should be the search for where we are headed. Are we evolving to inhabit our fourth economic order? Are we already questing to transcend the open access order marked by our capitalist drive for competitive dominance? Is there a last chopper out of Saigon?
The human species is one of perpetual advancement, change and evolution. It is said that we are on the verge of becoming a type 1 civilization in accordance with the Kardashev scale. This would indicate a great leap in scientifically founded technological advancement. Especially centered around sustainable and renewable energy resources. (Wikipedia.com) Perhaps not an indicator of a change in economic ordering in and of its self, but a definite reinforcement of the idea of a perpetual evolution in the development of new systems and better orders for the sake of our survival and advancement. A recent Time article referenced the increasing trend of Artificial Intelligence and technology that is consuming our jobs. Predicting that this is a trend that will continue into the foreseeable future. As this AI improves, prices will be driven down and a wider range of people will have access to products and services. At the same time, new jobs will continue to unravel. (Time.com) It is high time we considered how technological evolution will shape and change humanity’s economic orders as they stand. One of these potential order evolutions has been proposed by a concept dubbed The Venus Project. This proposes the possibility of a resource-based economy in which resources would be considered “the common heritage of all inhabitants”. Though an unfeasible alternative at first glance considering the basic concept of scarcity. It is an economic system entirely reliant on a high level of technological advancement as humanity’s savior. An advancement we are experiencing now. (Thevenusproject.com) Perhaps this order is one of many possible future progressions in economic evolution.
Bottom Line: In a world still riddled with violence, scarcity, rent-seeking and a host of inefficiencies and shortcomings… perhaps it is high time we consider where we are going instead of what is trapping us in an order that is arguably nearing a date for withdrawal of our occupation.
* Please comment on these posts from my growth & development economics students, to help them with unclear analysis, other perspectives, data sources, etc.
References:
There is no doubt that the natural progression of Economic evolution has led us through varying orders. As Friedrich Hayek asserted in his work “Law, Legislation And Liberty”, our social structures or any structure above “the simplest atoms” is the result of an evolutionary process. This includes economic thought and structures. (Hayek 1973, 158) Capitalism is a jungle of competition. Full of rent-seekers that are defined as money-makers achieving their gains through political connections. A fairly common occurrence. (economist.com 2014)
Perhaps this is not an inherently negative manifestation of human civilization. Instead, it is simply a beacon of our current economic and social order that serves us in a capacity most befitting the natural progression of events and culture leading to here and now. (Hayek 1973, pg. 158) Douglass North corroborates the idea of this natural progression through his proposal of three social orders undergone (still being unraveled in some) by most national social orders. The first of which is referred to as the primitive social order in which we tended to our caves, sharpened stones and bashed each other’s skulls in for personal gain. (North 2006, pg. 4) The second of which commonly referred to as the “Limited Access Order” or “Natural State” includes the privileged rights of some to resources, often dominated by elites whom are incentivized to maintain order to keep this income flowing. There are many states still dwelling here. (North 2006, pg. 29) Finally, there is the order experienced by most of the Western world. This is the structure in which competition instead of elitist rents are used to maintain social order. Of-course open access societies are still inhabited with rent-seeking behavior. Just less of it. (North 2006, pg. 36-37) This evolution of human economic orders is of great intrigue. But, perhaps the real question of today should be the search for where we are headed. Are we evolving to inhabit our fourth economic order? Are we already questing to transcend the open access order marked by our capitalist drive for competitive dominance? Is there a last chopper out of Saigon?
The human species is one of perpetual advancement, change and evolution. It is said that we are on the verge of becoming a type 1 civilization in accordance with the Kardashev scale. This would indicate a great leap in scientifically founded technological advancement. Especially centered around sustainable and renewable energy resources. (Wikipedia.com) Perhaps not an indicator of a change in economic ordering in and of its self, but a definite reinforcement of the idea of a perpetual evolution in the development of new systems and better orders for the sake of our survival and advancement. A recent Time article referenced the increasing trend of Artificial Intelligence and technology that is consuming our jobs. Predicting that this is a trend that will continue into the foreseeable future. As this AI improves, prices will be driven down and a wider range of people will have access to products and services. At the same time, new jobs will continue to unravel. (Time.com) It is high time we considered how technological evolution will shape and change humanity’s economic orders as they stand. One of these potential order evolutions has been proposed by a concept dubbed The Venus Project. This proposes the possibility of a resource-based economy in which resources would be considered “the common heritage of all inhabitants”. Though an unfeasible alternative at first glance considering the basic concept of scarcity. It is an economic system entirely reliant on a high level of technological advancement as humanity’s savior. An advancement we are experiencing now. (Thevenusproject.com) Perhaps this order is one of many possible future progressions in economic evolution.
Bottom Line: In a world still riddled with violence, scarcity, rent-seeking and a host of inefficiencies and shortcomings… perhaps it is high time we consider where we are going instead of what is trapping us in an order that is arguably nearing a date for withdrawal of our occupation.
* Please comment on these posts from my growth & development economics students, to help them with unclear analysis, other perspectives, data sources, etc.
References:
- "Kardashev Scale." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
- North, Douglass, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry Weingast. "A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History." National Bureau of Economic Research (2006): 1-80. Print.
- "Resource Based Economy - The Venus Project." The Venus Project. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
- "Capitalism in America." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 27 June 2015. Web. 16 Nov. 2015
- Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Chicago, Ill.: U of Chicago, 1973. Print.
- "Robots Will Take Our Jobs-But We Will Adapt." Time. Time, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
- "Welcome to the Jungle." Nation States. 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
