http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1 "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 things like a basic income, 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."
The truth may be more, why worry so much about nukes when biological weapons have been called "the poor man's WMD" and any large state could make them and hide them?
We need to move to a new model of intrinisic security and mutual security, as I suggest here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net] "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?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?...
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 few weapons in a conventional sense (drones, nukes, plagues, guns, etc.) that can not under fairly easily imaginable circumstances be turned against the wielder, either by taking it over in some way or by copying it.
But things like health, intelligence, creativity, integrity, and community -- these are some of the foundations of true security and they are very difficult to turn against the possessor.
Which is why we should focus more on intrinsic security and mutual security instead of trying to dominate with high technology (which just leads to arms races that can get out of control for everyone involved): 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. "
Suicide could be seen as like a tree falling over in a storm. The trees that stay up in a storm tend to be the ones that are a bit flexible and have deep strong roots. What are the roots in your life (friends, family, hobbies, community, habits, pets, spiritual beliefs, good work, nature, music, and so on) and how can you strengthen them?
Exercise can help, too. You could talk to your doctor about juice fasting, too.
People might be better off if Facebook helped spread good health advice than just tried to pick up the pieces from unhealth living that is so promoted in our society (because addicting others is profitable to someone, often, and the basics of good health can be pretty cheap and profit less).
Good luck to you and you Dad. At least you can make the most of the time you still have together. That would mean a lot to him, I'm sure. And, in some sense, people remain alive when we hold a memory of them in our hearts.
"The race is on to make the human world a better (and more resilient) place before one of these overwhelms us:
Autonomous military robots out of control
Nanotechnology virus / gray slime
Ethnically targeted virus
Sterility virus
Computer virus
Asteroid impact
Y2K
Other unforseen computer failure mode
Global warming / climate change / flooding
Nuclear / biological war
Unexpected economic collapse from Chaos effects
Terrorism w/ unforseen wide effects
Out of control bureaucracy (1984)
Religious / philosophical warfare
Economic imbalance leading to world war
Arms race leading to world war
Zero-point energy tap out of control
Time-space information system spreading failure effect (Chalker's Zinder Nullifier)
Unforseen consequences of research (energy, weapons, informational, biological)"
"The drone was used again the following morning to avoid confrontation and ensure that no-one was harmed"
If a thirty million dollar drone is shot down, how many people are harmed by the loss of basic services (roads, education, health care, pollution controls) for money needed to replace the drone?
The big problem with the drones as they are used in general is that they are ironic: 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?"
Supplemental vitamin D can help with SAD, too, BTW. In olden days, people would have to stock up on that during the summer, although you could get some from fish and a few other dietary sources (which were cleaner of mercury etc. back then).
It's also called market failure. Risk of single-point-of-failure disaster was an externality that now everyone now has to pay for but was not priced into the product up front.
Something I put together: http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery "This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."
See my site for alternative economics ideas to deal with productivity rising faster than demand: http://www.pdfernhout.net/
Or this video I made: 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."
A "basic income" approach (social security and medicare for all from birth) could be better than the current needs-based approach to welfare. Then there would be no disincentive to work to get more than a basic income for those who wanted to.
I agree with you that most people want to do useful things. The problem is that often those useful things are not compensated for in the market -- stuff like raising children well, volunteering, creating great art, being an informed voter, running for office with an information campaign (as opposed to being in office), being a good friend and neighbor, comforting the dying, running a neighborhood watch program, and so on.
I'm not saying those things should be directly compensated (the quality might change), but a basic income acknowledges how much unpaid labor (often stereotypically women's work) it takes to make a healthy, happy, secure society. A basic income also acknowledges how a big percentage of our current prosperity has little to do with current labor but a lot to do with natural resources and culture (the spread of ideas) and so should be accessible by all as a human right ("freedom from want" as President Franklin Roosevelt said).
Thanks for the comment. I'd certainly agree there is a problem with reductionism, which is part of the point of the poem.
But your last point on the "summary" confuses me, because the point is to circle around, like a snake biting its own tail.
To try use your example with cars, I'm not saying it works identically metaphorically, but:
Mining machines are basically cars. Cars are basically made from car body parts. Car body parts are basically made from plates. Plates are basically made from steel. Steel is basically made from iron ore. Iron ore is basically made from mining machines.:-)
"I've seen this kind of thing before, where the people at the top of a particular discipline start acting as if all other science is secondary, is only an aspect of their chosen discipline."
All philosophy is anthropology;
All anthropology is psychology;
All psychology is biology;
All biology is chemistry;
All chemistry is physics;
All physics is math;
All math is philosophy.:-)
It seems more economical until taxes go up to pay for social programs, prisons, and police to deal with the consequences of a breaking income-through-jobs link. Jane Jacobs called these "transactions of decline": http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
What economists rarely are willing to talk about is the supposed "law of comparative advantage" only holds when a country has and maintains full employment.
But in short, automation, better design, voluntary social networks, the centralization of wealth, and the accumulation of infrastructure is a bigger factor than China in the US worker's economic problems. And to deal with a fundamental structural change that is only going to get worse for workers, we need to soften the exchange economy with a basic income, we need to increase our gift economy (like Wikipedia and Freecycle), we need to improve local subsistence (like with 3D printers, cheap solar panels, and gardening robots) and/or we need to improve our democratic participatory resource-based planning.
You could check out a list of studies on this page: http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html "Growing crops in healthy soils results in food products that offer healthy nutrients. There is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates and pesticide residues than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers."
Actually, getting a bit of insect damage can also improve a plant's nutritional qualities sometimes (certain plant defense compounds may be used by the human body for various purposes including fighting cancer).
While "organic" is a bit arbitrary ("certified organic" means following certain guidelines though), organic generally means no GMO, which can be beneficial.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/corn-study.cfm "Consumers have another reason to avoid genetically modified foods (GMO). Yesterday, European news outlets reported harmful health impacts on lab rats that were fed Monsanto's root worm resistant corn (Mon 863)."
But in general, you're better off eating any kind of vegetables than none, so don't let them not being "organic" stop you.
And people can rightly point to aspects of "organic" farming that are problematical too. It becomes a weighing thing of different tradeoffs.
Other factors can also effect nutrient quality of organic or non-organic produce, like shipping or choice of variety.
The point is that what we eat, especially vegetables, fruits, and beans, can have a tremendous effect on our health. http://www.drfuhrman.com/ "You can reverse disease, reduce high blood pressure, lose unwanted weight, lower your cholesterol levels, prevent heart disease and cancer, and improve your health - all without relying on drugs and fad diets. The importance of good nutrition is emphasized in Dr. Fuhrman's dietary program, Eat To Live."
But our agricultural subsidies in the USA don't reflect that, and instead promote factory farmed animal products and processed grains.
Storm has some good points. The main character is ignoring mystery of consciousness, to begin with, and leaps from the fact that science does have a lot of explanatory power to a religion of "scientistic" materialism assuming that whatever is not currently explained well (and may never be explained well) should be or can be ignored.
Google on work by Charles T. Tart for example: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/end-of-materialism/index.cfm "Charles T. Tart is internationally known for his more than 50 years of research on the nature of consciousness, altered states of consciousness (ASCs) and parapsychology, and is one of the founders of the field of Transpersonal (spiritual) Psychology. His and other scientists' work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual. This hurts people, it pressures them to reject vital aspects of their being."
Or: http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=121&pgtype=1 "According to Tart's model, the interface between the transpersonal "mind" and our brain-body's computational assessment and virtual reality construction of the physical world results in consciousness as-we-experience-it. Our consciousness is not pure, and we don't see "reality" as it is. Rather, what we experience is a semi-arbitrary construction derived from the balance between the transpersonal mind and the brain-body to produce a virtual reality that we simplistically call "reality." This virtual reality is a good simulation of the physical world, so it works well most of the time for our practical purposes, but it isn't reality per se. "
Many people loved the "Matrix" movies. Plato had the allegory of the "Cave" millennia ago which is similar. How do we know that reality and our own conscious being is not much more complex than our current limited brains can handle? It is indeed a leap of faith to say we are nothing but carbon atoms, or even just patterns of carbon atoms. It is not scientific! But many, many people make that "scientistic" leap of faith quite possibly in error because science can be so blindingly helpful sometimes in developing technology or making some predictions.
I give an example there about how for many people homeopathy may indeed work as a system of healing, even if only from the fact that the placebo effect is scientifically proven (it's even getting stronger) and homeopathy is a way of accessing that placebo effect power. There may be other aspects in practice as well, like most homeopaths may listen more to clients than MDs and may give good nutritional advice.
Also, unlike most usually innocuous homeopathc remedies, many drugs are put on the market after questionable studies and may be deadly. For example, consider Vioxx that may have contributed to my own father's death (when now I know better nutrition and vitamin D might have helped with his joint pain): http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/29/merck-pays-a-pittance-for-mass-murder/ "Q: Who killed more Americans-- al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Merck pushing Vioxx? A: Merck, by a factor of 18."
Good question. You would think that greatly reduced costs would produce increased profits in the short term, yes.
But there is a conflict, because insurance company profits are essentially a percentage of premiums, which will be raised every year to track rising costs (justified to clients and regulators).
With a single payer government-funded system, there is little incentive to keep costs high (but not none, because probably some aspect of bureaucratic salaries is tied to perceived importance and budget, but nothing like insurance CEO pay).
Still, I think insurance companies would go for the short term profits if they could, and I expect as more understand this, they will integrate it into wellness programs. For example: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx "The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportunity to choose and just corralled into these surgical interventions. Trying to figure out how to pay for ineffective and expensive medicine by politicians will never be a real solution. People need to know they do not have to have heart disease to begin with, and if they get it, aggressive nutrition is the most life-saving intervention. And it is free."
One other aspect of this is that "health care" has been defined as paying for treatments and drugs when you are sick. That is not health care. That is sick care. Thus, insurance will pay for a $100K heart operation, but not $50K over ten years for organic vegetables to keep you healthy. So, the insurance system is very broken *inherently* in that sense.
Slashdot Mirror
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1
"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 things like a basic income, 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."
Other related thoughts:
http://pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/06/cold-fusion-heating-up
The truth may be more, why worry so much about nukes when biological weapons have been called "the poor man's WMD" and any large state could make them and hide them?
We need to move to a new model of intrinisic security and mutual security, as I suggest here: ...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
"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?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
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 few weapons in a conventional sense (drones, nukes, plagues, guns, etc.) that can not under fairly easily imaginable circumstances be turned against the wielder, either by taking it over in some way or by copying it.
But things like health, intelligence, creativity, integrity, and community -- these are some of the foundations of true security and they are very difficult to turn against the possessor.
Sadly, one other truth we must face is, as Marine Major General Smedley Butler said:
"War is a Racket"
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
To move beyond that, we need to turn to "A Newer Way Of Thinking" like Albert Einstein called for:
http://anwot.org/
Which is why we should focus more on intrinsic security and mutual security instead of trying to dominate with high technology (which just leads to arms races that can get out of control for everyone involved): 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?
I've found waves of grief gradually get farther and father apart when a loved on dies (though this process may take a long time)...
Here are some general health tips I put together, on vitamin D deficiency and other nutritional deficiences given that health can effect mood: http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
Here is some information about moving past addictions: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
Suicide could be seen as like a tree falling over in a storm. The trees that stay up in a storm tend to be the ones that are a bit flexible and have deep strong roots. What are the roots in your life (friends, family, hobbies, community, habits, pets, spiritual beliefs, good work, nature, music, and so on) and how can you strengthen them?
Please get yourself and your Dad tested for vitamin D deficiency... Look up Dr. John Cannell's site on that.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
And check out Dr. Fuhrman's on eating more vegetables and fruits and gettign enough omega 3s:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/default.aspx
Exercise can help, too. You could talk to your doctor about juice fasting, too.
People might be better off if Facebook helped spread good health advice than just tried to pick up the pieces from unhealth living that is so promoted in our society (because addicting others is profitable to someone, often, and the basics of good health can be pretty cheap and profit less).
Good luck to you and you Dad. At least you can make the most of the time you still have together. That would mean a lot to him, I'm sure. And, in some sense, people remain alive when we hold a memory of them in our hearts.
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?"
Also, eating factory farmed meat in general is killing us and destroying our environment:
http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
So, maybe we'd be better off if the predators got rid of the cows instead of the rustlers?
"... if we could make the drone the size of a R/C model .. But we're not there yet."
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=10585
"Bringing 'Mini-Drones' and 'Green Design' to the Business of War"
Mine from 1999: http://kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/fears.htm
"The race is on to make the human world a better (and more resilient) place before one of these overwhelms us:
Autonomous military robots out of control
Nanotechnology virus / gray slime
Ethnically targeted virus
Sterility virus
Computer virus
Asteroid impact
Y2K
Other unforseen computer failure mode
Global warming / climate change / flooding
Nuclear / biological war
Unexpected economic collapse from Chaos effects
Terrorism w/ unforseen wide effects
Out of control bureaucracy (1984)
Religious / philosophical warfare
Economic imbalance leading to world war
Arms race leading to world war
Zero-point energy tap out of control
Time-space information system spreading failure effect (Chalker's Zinder Nullifier)
Unforseen consequences of research (energy, weapons, informational, biological)"
Some ideas about managing such risks: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1
"The drone was used again the following morning to avoid confrontation and ensure that no-one was harmed"
If a thirty million dollar drone is shot down, how many people are harmed by the loss of basic services (roads, education, health care, pollution controls) for money needed to replace the drone?
The big problem with the drones as they are used in general is that they are ironic:
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?"
I tried a decade ago, but for different reasons: :-) http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_thread/thread/df4b4363d544f766/1e499c6db59117a2?#1e499c6db59117a2
"License management tools: good, bad, or ugly?"
Same thing I was thinking...
Supplemental vitamin D can help with SAD, too, BTW. In olden days, people would have to stock up on that during the summer, although you could get some from fish and a few other dietary sources (which were cleaner of mercury etc. back then).
It's also called market failure. Risk of single-point-of-failure disaster was an externality that now everyone now has to pay for but was not priced into the product up front.
"The brain is actually divided into two parts doing different kinds of work for the sake of efficiency."
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_His_Emissary
Something I put together: http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."
"and all programming is ascii?"
Well, in a sense, yes, and, then, essentially, to cycle back, all ASCII sequence editing is made possible by programming. :-)
Thanks!
See my site for alternative economics ideas to deal with productivity rising faster than demand: http://www.pdfernhout.net/
Or this video I made:
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."
A "basic income" approach (social security and medicare for all from birth) could be better than the current needs-based approach to welfare. Then there would be no disincentive to work to get more than a basic income for those who wanted to.
I agree with you that most people want to do useful things. The problem is that often those useful things are not compensated for in the market -- stuff like raising children well, volunteering, creating great art, being an informed voter, running for office with an information campaign (as opposed to being in office), being a good friend and neighbor, comforting the dying, running a neighborhood watch program, and so on.
I'm not saying those things should be directly compensated (the quality might change), but a basic income acknowledges how much unpaid labor (often stereotypically women's work) it takes to make a healthy, happy, secure society. A basic income also acknowledges how a big percentage of our current prosperity has little to do with current labor but a lot to do with natural resources and culture (the spread of ideas) and so should be accessible by all as a human right ("freedom from want" as President Franklin Roosevelt said).
On motivation, see:
"RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
More ideas for dealing with unemployment resulting from increased efficiency in excess of rising demand on my homepage site.
Thanks for the comment. I'd certainly agree there is a problem with reductionism, which is part of the point of the poem.
But your last point on the "summary" confuses me, because the point is to circle around, like a snake biting its own tail.
To try use your example with cars, I'm not saying it works identically metaphorically, but:
Mining machines are basically cars. :-)
Cars are basically made from car body parts.
Car body parts are basically made from plates.
Plates are basically made from steel.
Steel is basically made from iron ore.
Iron ore is basically made from mining machines.
So, the circle... :-)
"I've seen this kind of thing before, where the people at the top of a particular discipline start acting as if all other science is secondary, is only an aspect of their chosen discipline."
A poem from my website: http://www.pdfernhout.net/
The Circle of Knowledge
All philosophy is anthropology; :-)
All anthropology is psychology;
All psychology is biology;
All biology is chemistry;
All chemistry is physics;
All physics is math;
All math is philosophy.
I first published it on slashdot I think: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1847578&cid=34100224
It seems more economical until taxes go up to pay for social programs, prisons, and police to deal with the consequences of a breaking income-through-jobs link. Jane Jacobs called these "transactions of decline":
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
What economists rarely are willing to talk about is the supposed "law of comparative advantage" only holds when a country has and maintains full employment.
See my website for alternative economic analysis on these sorts of things:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
But in short, automation, better design, voluntary social networks, the centralization of wealth, and the accumulation of infrastructure is a bigger factor than China in the US worker's economic problems. And to deal with a fundamental structural change that is only going to get worse for workers, we need to soften the exchange economy with a basic income, we need to increase our gift economy (like Wikipedia and Freecycle), we need to improve local subsistence (like with 3D printers, cheap solar panels, and gardening robots) and/or we need to improve our democratic participatory resource-based planning.
You could check out a list of studies on this page:
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html
"Growing crops in healthy soils results in food products that offer healthy nutrients. There is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates and pesticide residues than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers."
It kind of stands to reason that richer soil means healthier crops:
http://www.remineralize.org/
Actually, getting a bit of insect damage can also improve a plant's nutritional qualities sometimes (certain plant defense compounds may be used by the human body for various purposes including fighting cancer).
While "organic" is a bit arbitrary ("certified organic" means following certain guidelines though), organic generally means no GMO, which can be beneficial.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/corn-study.cfm
"Consumers have another reason to avoid genetically modified foods (GMO). Yesterday, European news outlets reported harmful health impacts on lab rats that were fed Monsanto's root worm resistant corn (Mon 863)."
But in general, you're better off eating any kind of vegetables than none, so don't let them not being "organic" stop you.
And people can rightly point to aspects of "organic" farming that are problematical too. It becomes a weighing thing of different tradeoffs.
Other factors can also effect nutrient quality of organic or non-organic produce, like shipping or choice of variety.
The point is that what we eat, especially vegetables, fruits, and beans, can have a tremendous effect on our health.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/
"You can reverse disease, reduce high blood pressure, lose unwanted weight, lower your cholesterol levels, prevent heart disease and cancer, and improve your health - all without relying on drugs and fad diets. The importance of good nutrition is emphasized in Dr. Fuhrman's dietary program, Eat To Live."
But our agricultural subsidies in the USA don't reflect that, and instead promote factory farmed animal products and processed grains.
Storm has some good points. The main character is ignoring mystery of consciousness, to begin with, and leaps from the fact that science does have a lot of explanatory power to a religion of "scientistic" materialism assuming that whatever is not currently explained well (and may never be explained well) should be or can be ignored.
Google on work by Charles T. Tart for example: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/end-of-materialism/index.cfm
"Charles T. Tart is internationally known for his more than 50 years of research on the nature of consciousness, altered states of consciousness (ASCs) and parapsychology, and is one of the founders of the field of Transpersonal (spiritual) Psychology. His and other scientists' work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual. This hurts people, it pressures them to reject vital aspects of their being."
Or:
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=121&pgtype=1
"According to Tart's model, the interface between the transpersonal "mind" and our brain-body's computational assessment and virtual reality construction of the physical world results in consciousness as-we-experience-it. Our consciousness is not pure, and we don't see "reality" as it is. Rather, what we experience is a semi-arbitrary construction derived from the balance between the transpersonal mind and the brain-body to produce a virtual reality that we simplistically call "reality." This virtual reality is a good simulation of the physical world, so it works well most of the time for our practical purposes, but it isn't reality per se. "
Many people loved the "Matrix" movies. Plato had the allegory of the "Cave" millennia ago which is similar. How do we know that reality and our own conscious being is not much more complex than our current limited brains can handle? It is indeed a leap of faith to say we are nothing but carbon atoms, or even just patterns of carbon atoms. It is not scientific! But many, many people make that "scientistic" leap of faith quite possibly in error because science can be so blindingly helpful sometimes in developing technology or making some predictions.
More points here on the limits of science as a *social* enterprise:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html
I give an example there about how for many people homeopathy may indeed work as a system of healing, even if only from the fact that the placebo effect is scientifically proven (it's even getting stronger) and homeopathy is a way of accessing that placebo effect power. There may be other aspects in practice as well, like most homeopaths may listen more to clients than MDs and may give good nutritional advice.
Also, unlike most usually innocuous homeopathc remedies, many drugs are put on the market after questionable studies and may be deadly. For example, consider Vioxx that may have contributed to my own father's death (when now I know better nutrition and vitamin D might have helped with his joint pain):
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/29/merck-pays-a-pittance-for-mass-murder/
"Q: Who killed more Americans-- al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Merck pushing Vioxx?
A: Merck, by a factor of 18."
That disaster is one more reason we need better health sensemaking:
http://www.changemakers.com/morehealth/entries/health-sensemaking
Als
Good question. You would think that greatly reduced costs would produce increased profits in the short term, yes.
But there is a conflict, because insurance company profits are essentially a percentage of premiums, which will be raised every year to track rising costs (justified to clients and regulators).
With a single payer government-funded system, there is little incentive to keep costs high (but not none, because probably some aspect of bureaucratic salaries is tied to perceived importance and budget, but nothing like insurance CEO pay).
Still, I think insurance companies would go for the short term profits if they could, and I expect as more understand this, they will integrate it into wellness programs. For example:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
"The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportunity to choose and just corralled into these surgical interventions. Trying to figure out how to pay for ineffective and expensive medicine by politicians will never be a real solution. People need to know they do not have to have heart disease to begin with, and if they get it, aggressive nutrition is the most life-saving intervention. And it is free."
One other aspect of this is that "health care" has been defined as paying for treatments and drugs when you are sick. That is not health care. That is sick care. Thus, insurance will pay for a $100K heart operation, but not $50K over ten years for organic vegetables to keep you healthy. So, the insurance system is very broken *inherently* in that sense.
Again, a government program can get around this by integrating things like agricultural subsidies in theory. Unfortunately, US subsidies for agriculture have been captures by unhealthy food makers:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
What a mess.