Xest makes some good points about reasons to be more optimistic. However, I've certainly been pessimistic about this myself in the past. Here is an excerpt from a satire I wrote about this and posted to slashdot over a decade ago in relation to an article: "MPAA to Senate: Plug the Analog Hole!" after sending a copy of the US Department of Justice who had asked for comments (I also sent a copy to Richard Stallman who said it made him laugh): http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html "My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success.... [Inaudible shouted question] Prisons? There are only a million Americans behind bars for copyright infringement so far. No one complained about the million plus non-violent drug offenders we've had there for years. No one complained about the million plus terrorists we've got there now, thanks in no small part to a patriotic Supreme Court which after being privatized upheld that anyone who criticizes government policy in public or private is a criminal terrorist. Oops, I shouldn't have said that, as those terrorists aren't technically criminals or subject to the due process of law are they? Well it's true these days you go to prison if you complain about the drug war, or the war on terrorism, or the war on infringers of copyrights and software patents -- so don't complain! [nervous audience laughter] After all, without security, what is the good of American Freedoms? Benjamin Franklin himself said it best, those who don't have security will trade in their freedoms...."
Sad it is all becoming a little too true, even with some progress on the drug war front.
As I've realized, the USSR had to guard its borders to keep people from escaping that often dysfunctional society -- and we've all been told that showed how bad a country they were. But the USA needs to guard its medicine cabinets instead to keep people from escaping -- what does that say about the USA?
In one of Freeman Dyson's books, like "Infinite in All Directions" he talks about the coming conflicts between government and individuals wanting to redefine themselves biologically, where drug use is just a first example of a more general issue.
as a trustee for my local historical society: http://omeka.org/ "Create complex narratives and share rich collections, adhering to Dublin Core standards with Omeka on your server, designed for scholars, museums, libraries, archives, and enthusiasts."
Although I have my own stuff I'm working on too (the Pointrel system) but that is more about federating social semantic desktops and supporting sensemaking than specifically for museums doing interpretive presentations about selections from their archives etc...
There certainly is a lot of truth to your point. To broaden it out a bit, here is something I wrote years ago: http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html "... I agree with the sentiment of the Einstein quote [That we should approach the universe with compassion], but that sentiment itself is only part of a larger difficult-to-easily-resolve situation. It become more the Yin/Yang or Meshwork/Hierarchy situation I see when I look out my home office window into a forest. On the surface it is a lovely scene of trees as part of a forest. Still, I try to see *both* the peaceful majesty of the trees and how these large trees are brutally shading out of existence saplings which are would-be competitors (even shading out their own children). Yet, even as big trees shade out some of their own children, they also put massive resources into creating a next generation, one of which will indeed likely someday replace them when they fall. I try to remember there is both an unseen silent chemical war going on out there where plants produce defense compounds they secrete in the soil to inhibit the growth of other plant species (or insects or fungi) as a vile act of territoriality and often expansionism, and yet also the result is a good spacing of biomass to near optimally convert sunlight to living matter and resist and recover from wind and ice damage. I try to recall that there is the most brutal of competition between species of plants and animals and fungi and so on over water, nutrients (including from eating other creatures), sunlight, and space, while at the same time each bacterial colony or multicellular organism (like a large Pine tree) is a marvel of cooperation towards some implicitly shared purpose. I see the awesome result of both simplicity and complexity in the organizational structure of all these organisms and their DNA, RNA, and so on, adapted so well in most cases to the current state of such a complex web of being. Yet I can only guess the tiniest fraction of what suffering that selective shaping through variation and selection must have entailed for untold numbers of creatures over billions of years. To be truthful, I can actually *really* see none of that right now as it is dark outside this early near Winter Solstice time (and an icy rain is falling) beyond perhaps a silhouette outline, so I must remember and imagine it, perhaps as Einstein suggests as an "optical delusion of [my] consciousness".:-)
So much for "world peace" when even the tranquil seeming forests have so much Yin-Yang complexity going on within and around the trees.:-) The best I feel we can hope for is balance (like Ursula K. Le Guin's writings): http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ or maybe, transcendence to some form of universe certainly way beyond our present understanding; example, with its own flaws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Intellect But still, no matter what examples the universes sets before us, or in what proportion, as *ethical* and *spiritual* beings, we humans can choose a different way, and at least approximate world peace among ourselves as best we can. Something I learned from an old and wise biologist (Larry Slobodkin) who studied both philosophy and nature."
So, we can make choices, as sentient creatures, about how we want to live. The current laws of physics may constrain those choices, but we can still make choices as individuals and collectives. How do we want to live? How can we shape our rules, norms, prices, and architecture to influence that behavior? (Lawrence Lessig's point in "Code 2.0").
Something I wrote a couple years ago: http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/-The-need-for-FOSS-intelligence-tools-for-sensemaking-etc.-/76207-8319 "Now, there are many people out there (including computer scientists) who may raise legitimate concerns about privacy or other important issues in regards to any system that can support the intelligence community (as well as civilian needs). As I see it, there is a race going on. The race is between two trends. On the one hand, the internet can be used to profile and round up dissenters to the scarcity-based economic status quo (thus legitimate worries about privacy and something like TIA). On the other hand, the internet can be used to change the status quo in various ways (better designs, better science, stronger social networks advocating for some healthy mix of a basic income, a gift economy, democratic resource-based planning, improved local subsistence, etc., all supported by better structured arguments like with the Genoa II approach) to the point where there is abundance for all and rounding up dissenters to mainstream economics is a non-issue because material abundance is everywhere. So, as Bucky Fuller said, whether is will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end. While I can't guarantee success at the second option of using the internet for abundance for all, I can guarantee that if we do nothing, the first option of using the internet to round up dissenters (or really, anybody who is different, like was done using IBM computers in WWII Germany) will probably prevail. So, I feel the global public really needs access to these sorts of sensemaking tools in an open source way, and the way to use them is not so much to "fight back" as to "transform and/or transcend the system". As Bucky Fuller said, you never change thing by fighting the old paradigm directly; you change things by inventing a new way that makes the old paradigm obsolete."
From: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Money ----
Picard tries to explain to Ralph Offenhouse from the 20th century that there would be no need for his law firm any longer: "A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions." (TNG: "The Neutral Zone")
When Lily Sloane asked how much the USS Enterprise-E cost to build, Picard tells her "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." (Star Trek: First Contact) -----
That said, we likely will always have a mix of different types of economic transactions in any society (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft). The question is, what should the mix look like to meet what goals?
Whatever may have been true in centuries past, with the rise of AI like "Watson" and robotics like "Baxter", I'm just not too worried about the issue of people being motivated to "work" in dull jobs. And interesting jobs are generally their own motivation.
I agree that there are non-monetary alternatives that are possible as some part of an economic mix. You outline a "subsistence" approach; other alternatives to an economy based mostly on exchange include a gift economy or better planning. Here is a presentation I put together about that: "Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY "This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."
"I can't imagine that a treadmill would work well in the office -- I'd either be focused on the treadmill and not working, or be focused on working and not the treadmill and would end up tripping myself."
Increased concentration on a treadmill workstation has been my experience and that of others too who report on using them. There is the rhythm of walking that can help keep one on-track. Also, in general you feel better which means less distracting aches and pains of sitting all day. You may quickly get used to it like I did. I vary walking, standing, and sitting on a tall stool with mine. On the other hand, my wife has found she can't type well using one. So, your mileage may vary. I could believe they work better for some people than others.
The person who posted the original question should point out to his or her boss that treadmill desks run at low speeds (typically around just one mph as a slow walk, so not noisy jogging speed) and so in general are fairly quiet. There are a variety of manufacturers that focus on quiet, so get a high end one.
One big downside compared to walking with coworkers or a dog outside is you don't get vitamin D from noon-day sunshine in the summer. So, do both.
From what I wrote in 2008 before I'd heard about "basic income", with a a typo and a rotted link fixed: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/a4Fw5A15GUE/wQbnjYso09sJ ---- Something I wrote in another list, but I am posting a variant here in public in part as a contribution towards [Nathan Craven's] work on an open enterprise, moving towards an open society. This is to support a transition to a post-scarcity future.
It seems that, sadly, we can expect zero privacy in our personal affairs in the USA between warrantless wiretapping and banks and ISPs rolling over for any governmental request for any reason. The US government is now underwriting all the major banks and the three major US car companies to the sum of approaching about a year's GDP. And the Fed is now doing "quantitative easing" which is Fed speak for printing money. This is all very *radical* (and hypocritical) compared to the ideology espoused by most political and economic leaders in the USA historically. We are now in uncharted territory.
So, since privacy is history, and banks are now socialized enterprises, and the main engines of US manufacturing (the car companies) are now run as welfare organizations for all those US Americans who otherwise would lose their jobs, and I could say more on what's going wrong but won't here, how can we get something good out of this spirit of radical innovation by our leadership by looking on the bright side?:-)
My suggestion:
* Close all the banks and have the US Social Security administration run a single debit checking account with a card based on the person's SSN (plus an additional PIN or other security measure like a physical token or biometric or some combination of all three the user might choose). We have no financial privacy anyway anymore, sadly, so the cost savings would outweigh making it easy for the government to spy on anyone. Maybe make all transfers part of the public record (especially that of public officials), or maybe not. Make part of the public record who has looked at whose account information. Maybe involve the US post office for PIN number resets where ID is presented in person. The transparency of funds transfers may deter some fraud and identity theft.
* All account holders have US$1500 a month deposited in that account. This replaces all forms of government welfare. There is no needs test, so everyone gets it, and this reduces overhead. This also replaces all forms of public education (since a kid's money can be used for schooling if the parents want it to). This also replaces social security for the elderly. If people need more than this, tough -- charity can handle that.:-) It would be illegal to borrow against future earnings there or to enforce any such deal. This monthly amount would vary depending on Congress and price fluctuations. Services might spring up to supply a good life on just the basic stipend for intellectual types. Industrial productivity would go up as no one who did not want to work would apply for a job. It is possible one could phase in the amount in this account over a few years to give the economy time to adjust. But maybe it would be best to just do it all at once.
* Medicare/Medicaid for all. Congress sets the limits similar to other countries health care systems. People want more, they buy private supplementary insurance. Nursing homes are available for all, but they require handing over most of the monthly stipend. There might be government plans for in home round the clock nursing care too (again, costing about a monthly stipend); if you want something better, you buy private long-term care insurance.
* Either one or both of a flat transaction tax (3%?) or a wealth tax (0.25% monthly on balances and real property of any US account holder) to pay for
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?... Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing.... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.... We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html "Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all...."
http://disciplinedminds.com/ "In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."
Is some fraction of what I write ill-informed BS? No doubt. I just don't know which part or I'd correct it.:-) Still, let me reiterate, as I said in the post you responded to, in thirty years these sorts of economic discussion will likely be moot. With the growth of robotics and AI, 3D printing, advanced nanotech materials, probably hot and/or cold fusion power, certainly dirt-cheap solar panels (down to $1.75 or so a watt deliver from Amazon at the moment from 3X times that ten years ago), continued breakthroughs in nutritionally-based medicine and related diagnostic sensing, and so on, the economic landscape will almost certainly be radically different in 30 years than today. Most paid human labor will be replaced by such innovations, and most human labor will have little conventional economic value. That is the core point of my post. That is why I advocate rethinking economics, including by having a "basic income" like Marshall Brain proposes or along other lines like expanding the gift economy, improving subsistence production via 3D printers and solar panels, or improving government planning so it is more participatory at all levels. So, we are only quibbling about how the economic lines squiggle a bit to the left or right on the way there, IMHO.
Ignoring the ad hominems -- and the possibility you are just a psyops technician of the kind you claim elsewhere to despise:-) -- thanks for the challenge to get me to think more about this issue of floating exchange rates and currency manipulation. I have to agree that it is possible for countries to manipulate their currencies for an extended period of time to achieve certain national (or leadership-related) goals. China has been accused of that, probably with a lot of truth, like discussed here: http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2010/11/23/exchange-rates-and-trade-a-delicate-balancing-act-currently-out-of-balance/
As discussed there, what are the key issues related to exchange rates and labor costs? Well, the cost of a product from China is essentially the cost of Chinese labor in China (plus costs from rent-seekers and raw materials that I'll ignore) times the conversion rate of Chinese currency to US currency (currently 0.16 USD per RMD according to one calculator I tried). You are implying that both Chinese wages and the currency conversion rate will hold fairly constant for 30 years. I am suggesting that both the Chinese wages and the conversion rate will likely significantly rise over the next thirty years and that this will happen in most other huma
The only thing that will stop the outsourcing economically from places like the USA or Canada (short of political change, but the money is against it) will be when global wages equilibrate as relative currency values change. But by then, in a couple decades, AI and robotics will be doing most things people are paid for now, and it will be hard for most people to compete in a race-to-the-bottom with machines that work ever-more-cheaply 24X7 for most jobs. Even if some people can compete, a lot of people like doing things like being outdoors growing plants, or making stuff with their hands, or building big things, so I can't see how most people are going to be happy spending huge amounts of time stuck doing whatever is left after all those things are mostly automated (robot management -- except won't AIs do that?).
Essentially, as I say on my site, there are five interwoven economies (or types of economic transactions -- subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and the balance between them changes along with technology and culture. Right now, we need to be talking about things like re-strengthening the subsistence, gift, and planned economies, while softening the exchange economy with a basic income. Because in a world full of cheap robotics, the exchange value of native human labor in the USA is not going to be that high. And otherwise theft increases as the moral bargain behind any particular economy is seen to break down -- and growing theft has its own huge costs and undesirable aspects.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html "Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."
There are only so many hours in the day. If we put those hours into finding new ways to kill other people and win conflicts, we will not be putting those hours into finding new ways to heal people and resolve conflicts. Langdon Winner talks about this topic in his writings when he explores the notion of whether artifacts have politics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner
Albert Einstein wrote, after the first use of atomic weapons, that everything had changed but our way of thinking. You make some good points about us long having cruise missiles, but on "forces of good", here is something written decades ago by then retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler: http://www.warisaracket.com/ "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes...."
Just because it was "hot" before, with cruise missiles and nukes and poison gases, does not mean we will be better off when our society reaches a boiling point -- with robotic soldiers and military AIs and speedier plagues and so on. Eventually quantitative changes (like lowering prices per unit) become qualitative changes. Every year our planet is in conflict is a year of risk of that conflict escalating into global disaster. So, the question is, do our individual actions add to that risk or take away from it?
This web page includes suggestion by me on ways to transcend artificial scarcity as the basis of our modern economy: http://www.artificialscarcity.com/
Anyway, it was a great video as piece of performance art related to the idea, which also connects to "planned obsolescence" or even, to a lesser extent, "fashion".
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_desktop "To foster interoperability between different implementations and publish standards, the community around the NEPOMUK project founded the OSCA Foundation (OSCAF) in 2008. Since June 2009, the developers from the nepomuk-kde communities and xesame collaborate with OSCAF to help standardizing the data formats for KDE, gnome, and freedesktop. The NEPOMUK/OSCAF standards are taken up by these projects and Nokia's Maemo Platform...."
Great link. Speaking of "mileage", a treadmill workstation can help too, by providing some extra extraneous input and thus supporting focus on the task at hand. http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking
Consider that the original poster said her or she has no problem mowing the lawn to completion -- which entails walking.
Having a real window to look out from can probably help, too, since it is distracting, but it is good for the eyes and brain to look far away at naturally lit surroundings.
Humans were not adapted through evolutionary forces for apparently hundreds of thousands of years to sit all day in one place in isolation, day after day after day for years at a time, just making some small finger motions and staring straight ahead. Such humans probably tended to starve, atrophy, not reproduce, and/or get eaten. So, it's actually "natural" that it is hard for anyone to do that (let alone be healthy doing that), even with an occasional bathroom break or pizza run thrown in there now and then. See for example: http://www.howtogeek.com/93822/sitting-is-killing-you-infographic/
And while this link is about escaping the "Pleasure Trap" of eating poorly, perhaps it applies to escaping the multi-tasking trap of thinking that makes you feel more productive long-term? http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
I agree that limiting distracting notifications can make a big difference too. Every interruption costs something to recover.
Of course, these recommendations I make or agree with are from a more introverted perspective of a programmer, where introverts tend to have a lot of internally-generated stimulation. Extroverted people doing different sorts of task may thrive on lots more chaos and may benefit from a higher level of external stimulation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion#Biological_factors "Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal. He hypothesized that introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts."
So, another possibility is just that the original poster might be extroverted and better suited for some other type of work involving a lot of people-oriented interactions? Whereas the fact that you or I might seek to minimize distractions (and can do that) might reflect being more introverted overall?
"The hijackers were not acting on the behalf of the Saudi Government either directly or indirectly. The hijackers were outlaws, terrorists, that wanted not only to attack the United States but to overthrow the Saudi government as well."
You do realize that a big part of the reason for most of the hijackers themselves (ignoring Bin Laden's motives as an organizer) attacked the USA is probably because the hijackers felt the USA supported the Saudi government they thought was oppressive to themselves and had blighted their personal futures? There was an article in the New Yorker (I think) discussing this many years ago. That is why most of those specific people were so suggestible as to go along with it. Still, it's a complex topic, and it is hard to know for sure; a longer list of possibilities: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/whatwerethecausesof911/
See especially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks "Research on Suicide Terrorism; Robert Pape identified 315 incidents, all but 14 of which they classified as part of 18 different campaigns. These 18 shared two elements and all but one shared a third:[20] 1) A foreign occupation; 2) by a democracy; 3) of a different religion. Mia Bloom interviewed relatives and acquaintances of suicide terrorists. Her conclusions largely support Pape's, suggesting that it is much more difficult to get people to volunteer for a suicide mission without such a foreign occupation.[21]"
Or: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/09/09/244452/-What-motivated-the-9-11-hijackers-to-attack-the-US "The 9-11 Commission held its twelfth and final public hearing June 16-17, 2004, in Washington, DC. On June 16 the Commission heard from several of the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot. It was at this hearing that the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission said, "I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents.... what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?" The agents looked at each other, apparently not eager to be the one to have to say it. FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald stepped up to the plate and laid out the facts, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." But this testimony was kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report and no recommendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks."
So, while people often say "they hate us because we are free", but it seems all too often the geopolitical reality is "they hate us because we fund their oppressors".
You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate the time you gave to reading what I wrote and responding about it.
BTW, I'm sure some part of it is indeed bullshit -- just not sure which parts or I would fix them.:-) See: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/researcher-responds-to-arguments-over-his-theory-of-arguing/ "The main idea of the "argumentative theory of reasoning," put forward by Dan Sperber and myself is that the function of human reasoning -- why it evolved -- is to improve communication by allowing people to debate with each other: to produce and evaluate arguments during a discussion. This contrasts with the standard view of reasoning -- apparently shared by quite a few of the readers -- that reasoning evolved in order to further individual reasoning: to make better decisions, to plan ahead, to get better beliefs, etc. We have gathered a lot of evidence in support of our theory. The interested reader may enjoy a short summary, and the bravest may read the main academic article (use the "One-Click Download" link on the summary Web page). For those who don't have the time or the inclination, let me simply try to correct an important but common misconception.
We do not claim that reasoning has nothing to do with the truth. We claim that reasoning did not evolve to allow the lone reasoner to find the truth. We think it evolved to argue. But arguing is not only about trying to convince other people; it's also about listening to their arguments. So reasoning is two-sided. On the one hand, it is used to produce arguments. Here its goal is to convince people. Accordingly, it displays a strong confirmation bias -- what people see as the "rhetoric" side of reasoning. On the other hand, reasoning is also used to evaluate arguments. Here its goal is to tease out good arguments from bad ones so as to accept warranted conclusions and, if things go well, get better beliefs and make better decisions in the end."
A diversity of ideas exchanged with each other can make us all smarter, even if one person had 90% of the ideas an someone else 10%, like Scott E. Page writes about here: http://www.amazon.com/Difference-Diversity-Creates-Schools-Societies/dp/0691128383 "In this landmark book, Scott Page redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups--and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity--not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities.
The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup.
Page changes the way we understand diversity--how to harness its untapped potential, how to understand and avoid its traps, and how we can leverage our differences for the benefit of all."
Interesting: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Private-hell-Leicester-scientist-searching-cancer-wonder-drug/story-12084144-detail/story.html "Gerry's relentlessly obsessive pursuit of medicine's holy grail shattered his sanity -- and saw him sectioned for his own safety. He read about his breakthrough, plastered over the front pages of the national press, while locked up in a mental health unit. Today, we tell his remarkable story -- the eureka moment that saw him imagine the blueprint for a $1 billion drug, how he built abiraterone in a fortnight, how it was so very nearly dumped, and how the desperate pleas for help from people dying of the disease pushed him over the edge..."
Reminds me of what happened to the guy who ended up essentially beaten to death in a mental institution after trying to convince people doctors caused illness because they did not wash their hands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis "Semmelweis demonstrated that puerperal fever (also known as childbed fever) was contagious and that this incidence could drastically be reduced by appropriate hand washing by medical care-givers. He made this discovery in 1847 while working in the Maternity Department of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital. His failure to convince his fellow doctors led to a tragic conclusion, however, he was ultimately vindicated and cleared of blame....
Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. The theory of diseases was highly influenced by ideas of an imbalance of the basic "four humours" in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia, for which the main treatment was bloodlettings. Medical texts at the time emphasized that each case of disease was unique, the result of a personal imbalance, and the main difficulty of the medical profession was to establish precisely each patient's unique situation, case by case.
The findings from autopsies of deceased women also showed a confusing multitude of physical signs, which emphasized the belief that puerperal fever was not one, but many different, yet unidentified, diseases. Semmelweis's main finding â" that all instances of puerperal fever could be traced back to only one single cause: lack of cleanliness â" was simply unacceptable. His findings also ran against the conventional wisdom that diseases spread in the form of "bad air", also known as miasmas or vaguely as "unfavourable atmospheric-cosmic-terrestrial influences". Semmelweis's groundbreaking idea was contrary to all established medical understanding.
As a result, his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Other more subtle factors may also have played a role. Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands, feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean."
Gerald Potter was still focusing on a "magic bullet" though of a specific compound. My guess is that his mental health would improve if he ate a lot better, including lots of omega 3s, vitamin D, vegetables, etc.. He might want to look into medically supervised juice or water fasting as well for a time.
Here is more on the history of how mainstream medicine went off the rails a hundred years ago by focusing on profitable hands-on heroic cures by accredited specialists rather than focusing on nutrition and community education (like Natural Hygenists focused on): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report "One of the consequences of Flexner's advocacy of university-based medical education was that medical education became much more expensive, putting such education out of reach of all but upper-class white males. The smal
Slashdot Mirror
Xest makes some good points about reasons to be more optimistic. However, I've certainly been pessimistic about this myself in the past. Here is an excerpt from a satire I wrote about this and posted to slashdot over a decade ago in relation to an article: "MPAA to Senate: Plug the Analog Hole!" after sending a copy of the US Department of Justice who had asked for comments (I also sent a copy to Richard Stallman who said it made him laugh): ... [Inaudible shouted question] Prisons? There are only a million Americans behind bars for copyright infringement so far. No one complained about the million plus non-violent drug offenders we've had there for years. No one complained about the million plus terrorists we've got there now, thanks in no small part to a patriotic Supreme Court which after being privatized upheld that anyone who criticizes government policy in public or private is a criminal terrorist. Oops, I shouldn't have said that, as those terrorists aren't technically criminals or subject to the due process of law are they? Well it's true these days you go to prison if you complain about the drug war, or the war on terrorism, or the war on infringers of copyrights and software patents -- so don't complain! [nervous audience laughter] After all, without security, what is the good of American Freedoms? Benjamin Franklin himself said it best, those who don't have security will trade in their freedoms. ..."
http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
"My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success.
Sad it is all becoming a little too true, even with some progress on the drug war front.
As I've realized, the USSR had to guard its borders to keep people from escaping that often dysfunctional society -- and we've all been told that showed how bad a country they were. But the USA needs to guard its medicine cabinets instead to keep people from escaping -- what does that say about the USA?
Some books related to your points:
"War is a racket" on the profit-oriented ("fascistic") military-industrial complex
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
"Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me" on cognitive dissonance
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909
In one of Freeman Dyson's books, like "Infinite in All Directions" he talks about the coming conflicts between government and individuals wanting to redefine themselves biologically, where drug use is just a first example of a more general issue.
On the accelerating problem of addiction to "supernormal stimuli", which is a much more general issue than "drugs":
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/B0057DC3VY
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
By the way, some health ideas to look into, including vitamin D deficiency and eating more vegetables and omega-3s, which can help in avoiding depression:
http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
When all else fails, somethign from Howard Zinn:
as a trustee for my local historical society: http://omeka.org/
"Create complex narratives and share rich collections, adhering to Dublin Core standards with Omeka on your server, designed for scholars, museums, libraries, archives, and enthusiasts."
It was good enough for the Grateful Dead:
http://www.gdao.org/
http://omeka.org/forums/topic/looking-for-digital-project-mgr-grateful-dead-archive
http://www.cni.org/topics/digital-curation/building-the-grateful-dead-archive-online-the-golden-road-to-unlimited-devotion/
http://library.ucsc.edu/grateful-dead-archive
Although I have my own stuff I'm working on too (the Pointrel system) but that is more about federating social semantic desktops and supporting sensemaking than specifically for museums doing interpretive presentations about selections from their archives etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_desktop
I've been working on some related stuff myself (the Pointrel system) -- but is is all free and open source, so no Bill Gates lifestyle. :-)
... it gets even worse: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
There certainly is a lot of truth to your point. To broaden it out a bit, here is something I wrote years ago: ... I agree with the sentiment of the Einstein quote [That we should approach the universe with compassion], but that sentiment itself is only part of a larger difficult-to-easily-resolve situation. It become more the Yin/Yang or Meshwork/Hierarchy situation I see when I look out my home office window into a forest. On the surface it is a lovely scene of trees as part of a forest. Still, I try to see *both* the peaceful majesty of the trees and how these large trees are brutally shading out of existence saplings which are would-be competitors (even shading out their own children). Yet, even as big trees shade out some of their own children, they also put massive resources into creating a next generation, one of which will indeed likely someday replace them when they fall. I try to remember there is both an unseen silent chemical war going on out there where plants produce defense compounds they secrete in the soil to inhibit the growth of other plant species (or insects or fungi) as a vile act of territoriality and often expansionism, and yet also the result is a good spacing of biomass to near optimally convert sunlight to living matter and resist and recover from wind and ice damage. I try to recall that there is the most brutal of competition between species of plants and animals and fungi and so on over water, nutrients (including from eating other creatures), sunlight, and space, while at the same time each bacterial colony or multicellular organism (like a large Pine tree) is a marvel of cooperation towards some implicitly shared purpose. I see the awesome result of both simplicity and complexity in the organizational structure of all these organisms and their DNA, RNA, and so on, adapted so well in most cases to the current state of such a complex web of being. Yet I can only guess the tiniest fraction of what suffering that selective shaping through variation and selection must have entailed for untold numbers of creatures over billions of years. To be truthful, I can actually *really* see none of that right now as it is dark outside this early near Winter Solstice time (and an icy rain is falling) beyond perhaps a silhouette outline, so I must remember and imagine it, perhaps as Einstein suggests as an "optical delusion of [my] consciousness". :-) :-) The best I feel we can hope for is balance (like Ursula K. Le Guin's writings):
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
"
So much for "world peace" when even the tranquil seeming forests have so much Yin-Yang complexity going on within and around the trees.
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/
or maybe, transcendence to some form of universe certainly way beyond our present understanding; example, with its own flaws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Intellect
But still, no matter what examples the universes sets before us, or in what proportion, as *ethical* and *spiritual* beings, we humans can choose a different way, and at least approximate world peace among ourselves as best we can. Something I learned from an old and wise biologist (Larry Slobodkin) who studied both philosophy and nature."
So, we can make choices, as sentient creatures, about how we want to live. The current laws of physics may constrain those choices, but we can still make choices as individuals and collectives. How do we want to live? How can we shape our rules, norms, prices, and architecture to influence that behavior? (Lawrence Lessig's point in "Code 2.0").
Something I wrote a couple years ago: http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/-The-need-for-FOSS-intelligence-tools-for-sensemaking-etc.-/76207-8319
"Now, there are many people out there (including computer scientists) who may raise legitimate concerns about privacy or other important issues in regards to any system that can support the intelligence community (as well as civilian needs). As I see it, there is a race going on. The race is between two trends. On the one hand, the internet can be used to profile and round up dissenters to the scarcity-based economic status quo (thus legitimate worries about privacy and something like TIA). On the other hand, the internet can be used to change the status quo in various ways (better designs, better science, stronger social networks advocating for some healthy mix of a basic income, a gift economy, democratic resource-based planning, improved local subsistence, etc., all supported by better structured arguments like with the Genoa II approach) to the point where there is abundance for all and rounding up dissenters to mainstream economics is a non-issue because material abundance is everywhere. So, as Bucky Fuller said, whether is will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end. While I can't guarantee success at the second option of using the internet for abundance for all, I can guarantee that if we do nothing, the first option of using the internet to round up dissenters (or really, anybody who is different, like was done using IBM computers in WWII Germany) will probably prevail. So, I feel the global public really needs access to these sorts of sensemaking tools in an open source way, and the way to use them is not so much to "fight back" as to "transform and/or transcend the system". As Bucky Fuller said, you never change thing by fighting the old paradigm directly; you change things by inventing a new way that makes the old paradigm obsolete."
From: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Money
----
Picard tries to explain to Ralph Offenhouse from the 20th century that there would be no need for his law firm any longer: "A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions." (TNG: "The Neutral Zone")
When Lily Sloane asked how much the USS Enterprise-E cost to build, Picard tells her "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." (Star Trek: First Contact)
-----
That said, we likely will always have a mix of different types of economic transactions in any society (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft). The question is, what should the mix look like to meet what goals?
Whatever may have been true in centuries past, with the rise of AI like "Watson" and robotics like "Baxter", I'm just not too worried about the issue of people being motivated to "work" in dull jobs. And interesting jobs are generally their own motivation.
I agree that there are non-monetary alternatives that are possible as some part of an economic mix. You outline a "subsistence" approach; other alternatives to an economy based mostly on exchange include a gift economy or better planning. Here is a presentation I put together about that:
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."
"I can't imagine that a treadmill would work well in the office -- I'd either be focused on the treadmill and not working, or be focused on working and not the treadmill and would end up tripping myself."
Increased concentration on a treadmill workstation has been my experience and that of others too who report on using them. There is the rhythm of walking that can help keep one on-track. Also, in general you feel better which means less distracting aches and pains of sitting all day. You may quickly get used to it like I did. I vary walking, standing, and sitting on a tall stool with mine. On the other hand, my wife has found she can't type well using one. So, your mileage may vary. I could believe they work better for some people than others.
The person who posted the original question should point out to his or her boss that treadmill desks run at low speeds (typically around just one mph as a slow walk, so not noisy jogging speed) and so in general are fairly quiet. There are a variety of manufacturers that focus on quiet, so get a high end one.
One big downside compared to walking with coworkers or a dog outside is you don't get vitamin D from noon-day sunshine in the summer. So, do both.
Search on Dr. James Levine and the Mayo Clinic for more information. Here is a good link:
http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
From what I wrote in 2008 before I'd heard about "basic income", with a a typo and a rotted link fixed: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/a4Fw5A15GUE/wQbnjYso09sJ
----
Something I wrote in another list, but I am posting a variant here in public in part as a contribution towards [Nathan Craven's] work on an open enterprise, moving towards an open society. This is to support a transition to a post-scarcity future.
It seems that, sadly, we can expect zero privacy in our personal affairs in the USA between warrantless wiretapping and banks and ISPs rolling over for any governmental request for any reason. The US government is now underwriting all the major banks and the three major US car companies to the sum of approaching about a year's GDP. And the Fed is now doing "quantitative easing" which is Fed speak for printing money. This is all very *radical* (and hypocritical) compared to the ideology espoused by most political and economic leaders in the USA historically. We are now in uncharted territory.
So, since privacy is history, and banks are now socialized enterprises, and the main engines of US manufacturing (the car companies) are now run as welfare organizations for all those US Americans who otherwise would lose their jobs, and I could say more on what's going wrong but won't here, how can we get something good out of this spirit of radical innovation by our leadership by looking on the bright side? :-)
My suggestion:
* Close all the banks and have the US Social Security administration run a single debit checking account with a card based on the person's SSN (plus an additional PIN or other security measure like a physical token or biometric or some combination of all three the user might choose). We have no financial privacy anyway anymore, sadly, so the cost savings would outweigh making it easy for the government to spy on anyone. Maybe make all transfers part of the public record (especially that of public officials), or maybe not. Make part of the public record who has looked at whose account information. Maybe involve the US post office for PIN number resets where ID is presented in person. The transparency of funds transfers may deter some fraud and identity theft.
* All account holders have US$1500 a month deposited in that account. This replaces all forms of government welfare. There is no needs test, so everyone gets it, and this reduces overhead. This also replaces all forms of public education (since a kid's money can be used for schooling if the parents want it to). This also replaces social security for the elderly. If people need more than this, tough -- charity can handle that. :-) It would be illegal to borrow against future earnings there or to enforce any such deal. This monthly amount would vary depending on Congress and price fluctuations. Services might spring up to supply a good life on just the basic stipend for intellectual types. Industrial productivity would go up as no one who did not want to work would apply for a job. It is possible one could phase in the amount in this account over a few years to give the economy time to adjust. But maybe it would be best to just do it all at once.
* Medicare/Medicaid for all. Congress sets the limits similar to other countries health care systems. People want more, they buy private supplementary insurance. Nursing homes are available for all, but they require handing over most of the monthly stipend. There might be government plans for in home round the clock nursing care too (again, costing about a monthly stipend); if you want something better, you buy private long-term care insurance.
* Either one or both of a flat transaction tax (3%?) or a wealth tax (0.25% monthly on balances and real property of any US account holder) to pay for
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512386/danger-lurks-in-growing-new-internet-nationalism/?hubRefSrc=permalink#lf_comment=63033832
----
As I suggest in this essay: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead? ... Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ... We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ..."
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
That said, I sent notes to my Senators to support Rand Paul on the narrower issue he raised via "FreedomWorks" (not saying I endorse all of their or his other campaigns).
http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-%E2%80%9Cstands-with-rand%E2%80%9D-paul%E2%80%99s-senate-fili
http://disciplinedminds.com/
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."
Well, in what remains of our democracy and its core value of freedom of speech, you're certainly entitled to your opinions and speculations. :-)
http://bullies2buddies.com/Essential-Articles-for-Home-Page/the-true-meaning-of-the-golden-rule-love-your-bullies.html
Is some fraction of what I write ill-informed BS? No doubt. I just don't know which part or I'd correct it. :-) Still, let me reiterate, as I said in the post you responded to, in thirty years these sorts of economic discussion will likely be moot. With the growth of robotics and AI, 3D printing, advanced nanotech materials, probably hot and/or cold fusion power, certainly dirt-cheap solar panels (down to $1.75 or so a watt deliver from Amazon at the moment from 3X times that ten years ago), continued breakthroughs in nutritionally-based medicine and related diagnostic sensing, and so on, the economic landscape will almost certainly be radically different in 30 years than today. Most paid human labor will be replaced by such innovations, and most human labor will have little conventional economic value. That is the core point of my post. That is why I advocate rethinking economics, including by having a "basic income" like Marshall Brain proposes or along other lines like expanding the gift economy, improving subsistence production via 3D printers and solar panels, or improving government planning so it is more participatory at all levels. So, we are only quibbling about how the economic lines squiggle a bit to the left or right on the way there, IMHO.
A focus on individual people or their follies tends to ignore the long-term trends we see playing out, like the above. The progressing "Did You Know" series is interesting to watch on that including changes with the internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmwwrGV_aiE
Or stuff by Hans Rosling:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Or by me: :-)
http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
Ignoring the ad hominems -- and the possibility you are just a psyops technician of the kind you claim elsewhere to despise :-) -- thanks for the challenge to get me to think more about this issue of floating exchange rates and currency manipulation. I have to agree that it is possible for countries to manipulate their currencies for an extended period of time to achieve certain national (or leadership-related) goals. China has been accused of that, probably with a lot of truth, like discussed here:
http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/2010/11/23/exchange-rates-and-trade-a-delicate-balancing-act-currently-out-of-balance/
As discussed there, what are the key issues related to exchange rates and labor costs? Well, the cost of a product from China is essentially the cost of Chinese labor in China (plus costs from rent-seekers and raw materials that I'll ignore) times the conversion rate of Chinese currency to US currency (currently 0.16 USD per RMD according to one calculator I tried). You are implying that both Chinese wages and the currency conversion rate will hold fairly constant for 30 years. I am suggesting that both the Chinese wages and the conversion rate will likely significantly rise over the next thirty years and that this will happen in most other huma
This is a very insightful post. Wish I had mod points; instead I replied to another reply below.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3515549&cid=43077499
The only thing that will stop the outsourcing economically from places like the USA or Canada (short of political change, but the money is against it) will be when global wages equilibrate as relative currency values change. But by then, in a couple decades, AI and robotics will be doing most things people are paid for now, and it will be hard for most people to compete in a race-to-the-bottom with machines that work ever-more-cheaply 24X7 for most jobs. Even if some people can compete, a lot of people like doing things like being outdoors growing plants, or making stuff with their hands, or building big things, so I can't see how most people are going to be happy spending huge amounts of time stuck doing whatever is left after all those things are mostly automated (robot management -- except won't AIs do that?).
Still, while doing meaningful work (which includes child care) is essential to human health, having a paid job is only essential in a certain kind of economic system (like without a basic income). Canada has pioneered in that area:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit#Canada
On robotic trends and societal implications, see my post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3515335&cid=43077393
Or see my site for lots of ideas about the economics aspects of ongoing economic changes related to automation and increased productivity.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
Essentially, as I say on my site, there are five interwoven economies (or types of economic transactions -- subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and the balance between them changes along with technology and culture. Right now, we need to be talking about things like re-strengthening the subsistence, gift, and planned economies, while softening the exchange economy with a basic income. Because in a world full of cheap robotics, the exchange value of native human labor in the USA is not going to be that high. And otherwise theft increases as the moral bargain behind any particular economy is seen to break down -- and growing theft has its own huge costs and undesirable aspects.
Marshall Brain's site is great about the general topic of the economic implication of robotics (including wealth concentration):
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm
"AI" has always been that which AI can't do. Here are several activities that once were considered sci-fi-level AI but are no longer considered AI in a broad sense because we know how to do them more-or-less:
* Looking stuff up for us (Google);
http://www.google.com/
* Inferring questions from examples and answering questions posed in natural language (IBM's Watson);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)
* Generating hypotheses and doing hands/grippers-on scientific experiments (Adam);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Scientist
* Reading text in multiple fonts reliably and quickly and cheaply;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition
* translating one human language to another on the fly;
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.uit.innovation.html/
http://www.gizmag.com/go/1833/
* reading and translating signs;
http://questvisual.com/us/
* Making portraits;
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/11/tresset_robot_artist_artist_engineers_robots_to_make_art_and_save_his_own.single.html
* Playing the piano including from sheet music;
http://www.synthgear.com/2009/music-misc/synth-playing-robot/
http://gizmodo.com/5963137/watch-this-adorable-horde-of-intelligent-swarm-robots-play-piano
* Driving a car in busy traffic (Google, Stanford, CMU, others);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge#2007_Urban_Challenge
* Winning chess games (IBM's Deep Blue and pretty much any PC now against a mid-level player);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess
* Image recognition for quality control in factories;
http://www.general-vision.com/products/mtvs.php
* Recognizing faces;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system
* Figuring out the name of a musical composition from a few notes as well as making new compositions and dynamic accompaniments;
http://www.wikihow.com/Identify-Songs-Using-Melody
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_artificial_intelligence
* The diagnostic aspect of being a doctor (Watson again);
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/11/ibm-watson-medical-doctor
* Investing in volatile financial markets;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_trading
* Serving as a sentry with a machine gun;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5YftEAbmMQ
* Twirling a cell phone;
http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation
* Identifying things by smell;
...again those who would enslave them as guards and soldiers? http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/TheRightsofRobots.htm
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
There are only so many hours in the day. If we put those hours into finding new ways to kill other people and win conflicts, we will not be putting those hours into finding new ways to heal people and resolve conflicts. Langdon Winner talks about this topic in his writings when he explores the notion of whether artifacts have politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner
Albert Einstein wrote, after the first use of atomic weapons, that everything had changed but our way of thinking. You make some good points about us long having cruise missiles, but on "forces of good", here is something written decades ago by then retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler: ..."
http://www.warisaracket.com/
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Just because it was "hot" before, with cruise missiles and nukes and poison gases, does not mean we will be better off when our society reaches a boiling point -- with robotic soldiers and military AIs and speedier plagues and so on. Eventually quantitative changes (like lowering prices per unit) become qualitative changes. Every year our planet is in conflict is a year of risk of that conflict escalating into global disaster. So, the question is, do our individual actions add to that risk or take away from it?
I'm impressed with what some UAVs can do in terms of construction vs. destruction, so obviously there is a lot of different possibilities in that field.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/107217-real-life-constructicon-quadcopter-robots-being-developed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
Or:
http://www.disinfo.com/2013/01/is-sowing-artificial-scarcity-the-future-of-business/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html
Or:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1124-april-1998/artificial-scarcity
"Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself."
This web page includes suggestion by me on ways to transcend artificial scarcity as the basis of our modern economy:
http://www.artificialscarcity.com/
Anyway, it was a great video as piece of performance art related to the idea, which also connects to "planned obsolescence" or even, to a lesser extent, "fashion".
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_desktop ..."
"To foster interoperability between different implementations and publish standards, the community around the NEPOMUK project founded the OSCA Foundation (OSCAF) in 2008. Since June 2009, the developers from the nepomuk-kde communities and xesame collaborate with OSCAF to help standardizing the data formats for KDE, gnome, and freedesktop. The NEPOMUK/OSCAF standards are taken up by these projects and Nokia's Maemo Platform.
But, that is really just the beginning...
Great link. Speaking of "mileage", a treadmill workstation can help too, by providing some extra extraneous input and thus supporting focus on the task at hand.
http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking
Consider that the original poster said her or she has no problem mowing the lawn to completion -- which entails walking.
Eating better (especially veggies and omega 3s) and getting adequate vitamin D can help improve general concentration as well. A list of key health links I put together:
http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
Having a real window to look out from can probably help, too, since it is distracting, but it is good for the eyes and brain to look far away at naturally lit surroundings.
Humans were not adapted through evolutionary forces for apparently hundreds of thousands of years to sit all day in one place in isolation, day after day after day for years at a time, just making some small finger motions and staring straight ahead. Such humans probably tended to starve, atrophy, not reproduce, and/or get eaten. So, it's actually "natural" that it is hard for anyone to do that (let alone be healthy doing that), even with an occasional bathroom break or pizza run thrown in there now and then. See for example:
http://www.howtogeek.com/93822/sitting-is-killing-you-infographic/
And while this link is about escaping the "Pleasure Trap" of eating poorly, perhaps it applies to escaping the multi-tasking trap of thinking that makes you feel more productive long-term?
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
I agree that limiting distracting notifications can make a big difference too. Every interruption costs something to recover.
Of course, these recommendations I make or agree with are from a more introverted perspective of a programmer, where introverts tend to have a lot of internally-generated stimulation. Extroverted people doing different sorts of task may thrive on lots more chaos and may benefit from a higher level of external stimulation. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion#Biological_factors
"Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal. He hypothesized that introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts."
So, another possibility is just that the original poster might be extroverted and better suited for some other type of work involving a lot of people-oriented interactions? Whereas the fact that you or I might seek to minimize distractions (and can do that) might reflect being more introverted overall?
"The hijackers were not acting on the behalf of the Saudi Government either directly or indirectly. The hijackers were outlaws, terrorists, that wanted not only to attack the United States but to overthrow the Saudi government as well."
You do realize that a big part of the reason for most of the hijackers themselves (ignoring Bin Laden's motives as an organizer) attacked the USA is probably because the hijackers felt the USA supported the Saudi government they thought was oppressive to themselves and had blighted their personal futures? There was an article in the New Yorker (I think) discussing this many years ago. That is why most of those specific people were so suggestible as to go along with it. Still, it's a complex topic, and it is hard to know for sure; a longer list of possibilities:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/whatwerethecausesof911/
See especially:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks
"Research on Suicide Terrorism; Robert Pape identified 315 incidents, all but 14 of which they classified as part of 18 different campaigns. These 18 shared two elements and all but one shared a third:[20] 1) A foreign occupation; 2) by a democracy; 3) of a different religion. Mia Bloom interviewed relatives and acquaintances of suicide terrorists. Her conclusions largely support Pape's, suggesting that it is much more difficult to get people to volunteer for a suicide mission without such a foreign occupation.[21]"
Or: ... what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?" The agents looked at each other, apparently not eager to be the one to have to say it. FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald stepped up to the plate and laid out the facts, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." But this testimony was kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report and no recommendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/09/09/244452/-What-motivated-the-9-11-hijackers-to-attack-the-US
"The 9-11 Commission held its twelfth and final public hearing June 16-17, 2004, in Washington, DC. On June 16 the Commission heard from several of the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot. It was at this hearing that the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission said, "I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents.
So, while people often say "they hate us because we are free", but it seems all too often the geopolitical reality is "they hate us because we fund their oppressors".
See also:
"International Terrorism: Image and Reality"
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
The USA as a whole also does a lot of good in the world too, of course.
You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate the time you gave to reading what I wrote and responding about it.
BTW, I'm sure some part of it is indeed bullshit -- just not sure which parts or I would fix them. :-) See:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/researcher-responds-to-arguments-over-his-theory-of-arguing/
"The main idea of the "argumentative theory of reasoning," put forward by Dan Sperber and myself is that the function of human reasoning -- why it evolved -- is to improve communication by allowing people to debate with each other: to produce and evaluate arguments during a discussion. This contrasts with the standard view of reasoning -- apparently shared by quite a few of the readers -- that reasoning evolved in order to further individual reasoning: to make better decisions, to plan ahead, to get better beliefs, etc. We have gathered a lot of evidence in support of our theory. The interested reader may enjoy a short summary, and the bravest may read the main academic article (use the "One-Click Download" link on the summary Web page). For those who don't have the time or the inclination, let me simply try to correct an important but common misconception.
We do not claim that reasoning has nothing to do with the truth. We claim that reasoning did not evolve to allow the lone reasoner to find the truth. We think it evolved to argue. But arguing is not only about trying to convince other people; it's also about listening to their arguments. So reasoning is two-sided. On the one hand, it is used to produce arguments. Here its goal is to convince people. Accordingly, it displays a strong confirmation bias -- what people see as the "rhetoric" side of reasoning. On the other hand, reasoning is also used to evaluate arguments. Here its goal is to tease out good arguments from bad ones so as to accept warranted conclusions and, if things go well, get better beliefs and make better decisions in the end."
A diversity of ideas exchanged with each other can make us all smarter, even if one person had 90% of the ideas an someone else 10%, like Scott E. Page writes about here:
http://www.amazon.com/Difference-Diversity-Creates-Schools-Societies/dp/0691128383
"In this landmark book, Scott Page redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups--and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity--not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities.
The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup.
Page changes the way we understand diversity--how to harness its untapped potential, how to understand and avoid its traps, and how we can leverage our differences for the benefit of all."
Regarding yo
Interesting: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Private-hell-Leicester-scientist-searching-cancer-wonder-drug/story-12084144-detail/story.html
"Gerry's relentlessly obsessive pursuit of medicine's holy grail shattered his sanity -- and saw him sectioned for his own safety. He read about his breakthrough, plastered over the front pages of the national press, while locked up in a mental health unit. Today, we tell his remarkable story -- the eureka moment that saw him imagine the blueprint for a $1 billion drug, how he built abiraterone in a fortnight, how it was so very nearly dumped, and how the desperate pleas for help from people dying of the disease pushed him over the edge..."
Reminds me of what happened to the guy who ended up essentially beaten to death in a mental institution after trying to convince people doctors caused illness because they did not wash their hands: ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
"Semmelweis demonstrated that puerperal fever (also known as childbed fever) was contagious and that this incidence could drastically be reduced by appropriate hand washing by medical care-givers. He made this discovery in 1847 while working in the Maternity Department of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital. His failure to convince his fellow doctors led to a tragic conclusion, however, he was ultimately vindicated and cleared of blame.
Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. The theory of diseases was highly influenced by ideas of an imbalance of the basic "four humours" in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia, for which the main treatment was bloodlettings. Medical texts at the time emphasized that each case of disease was unique, the result of a personal imbalance, and the main difficulty of the medical profession was to establish precisely each patient's unique situation, case by case.
The findings from autopsies of deceased women also showed a confusing multitude of physical signs, which emphasized the belief that puerperal fever was not one, but many different, yet unidentified, diseases. Semmelweis's main finding â" that all instances of puerperal fever could be traced back to only one single cause: lack of cleanliness â" was simply unacceptable. His findings also ran against the conventional wisdom that diseases spread in the form of "bad air", also known as miasmas or vaguely as "unfavourable atmospheric-cosmic-terrestrial influences". Semmelweis's groundbreaking idea was contrary to all established medical understanding.
As a result, his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Other more subtle factors may also have played a role. Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands, feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean."
Gerald Potter was still focusing on a "magic bullet" though of a specific compound. My guess is that his mental health would improve if he ate a lot better, including lots of omega 3s, vitamin D, vegetables, etc.. He might want to look into medically supervised juice or water fasting as well for a time.
Here is more on the history of how mainstream medicine went off the rails a hundred years ago by focusing on profitable hands-on heroic cures by accredited specialists rather than focusing on nutrition and community education (like Natural Hygenists focused on):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
"One of the consequences of Flexner's advocacy of university-based medical education was that medical education became much more expensive, putting such education out of reach of all but upper-class white males. The smal