[PREV - EXTREME_HEALTH] [TOP]
MOTHER_COMPLEX
December 1, 2011
Another try:
The connections between the
ideas of ecology and economy
are interesting: both are Evolution based on "fitness"
complex systems we don't as an idea common to both:
understand in detail. Adam Smith was apparently Stephen
an influence on Darwin. Gould
regarded
One meaning of the term that as
"conservative" is (Though it's hard to get an odd
"cautious about changes". that meaning to line up quirk
with any existing group of history
that calls itself since
"conservative"...) free
markets
When a system is (a) important and obviously
(b) too complex to really understand, tend to
you can make a case for not messing UNCONSTRAINED break down
with it. into
monopolies.
People who call themselves "liberal" tend
to agree with that thought when you're Myself, I
talking about the environment, and yet think this
they don't agree with the idea that says something
economic systems should be left free to about Gould's
run unchecked. quirks.
"Don't mess with Mother Nature", The ebb-and-flow
never "Don't mess with Daddy Warbucks". of different
biological
People who call themselves "conservative" hegemonies is
have opposite prejudices. not typically
regarded as some
The issue gets murky when you're talking about sort of argument
the economy, because you could say that against
"regulation" is the normal state of affairs, "evolution".
and repealing rules that have been around for
half-a-century is a reckless gamble.
But then, to keep playing with this analogy, there
are people-who-call-themselves-conservative who
like the idea that we're due for a new Ice Age,
and it's only being held at bay by the greenhouse
gases we're pumping into the air.
If the principle is "don't mess
with the status quo", or "cease
interference and return to normal",
you need to know what that target
is.
Try this thesis: if the system is
complex enough to argue it should
be untouched, it will be too
complex to identify those touches
with any degree of precision.
Consider the possibility that it's
a question of degree of complexity.
If you can argue, say, that the
environment is more complex And obviously, another,
than the economy, it might be uh, complication is the
supportable to hold it sacred linkage between the
and untouchable, but not the realms: a decision to
economy. "protect the environment"
typically requires
government interference
in a market.
"Don't mess with
the complex" doesn't
Consider that there are other yield a clear policy.
complex systems this
non-interference principle
might be applied to, e.g. the WILD_MIND
human mind.
Further games with the ecology-economy analogy:
In an old spiral-bound notebook from the late-80s
I brought up the issue that evolution is regarded
as being without direction or purpose -- the
older notion that evolution has some in-built
vector of progress is regarded as a fallacy.
In comparison, free market advocates speak
glowingly of market-forces as a force
for good, because they "increase efficiency".
Is this then a real difference
between the two realms?
Do economic processes have a built-in
direction, a natural alignment with
progress?
I suspect that free market advocates
simply haven't caught up to the
evolutionists:
"Efficiency" at doing *what*?
EFFICIENTLY_INVISIBLE
"Efficiency" alone is not
necessarily something to be
favored by human values, any
more than evolutionary
"fitness".
PEDDLING_PROPERITY
FREE_MARKET_EFFICIENCY
NATURALLY_FORCED
BRIDGES
--------
[NEXT - TIMED_OUT]