How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Collapse...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

While going through NCO (Non-Comissioned Officer) school I was often told that being "Smart" is not the same thing as being "Right".

The popular refrain to this statement was "A stupid idea that works isn't stupid".

But what does this have to do with politics? you ask...

Show me a successful complex system, and I'll show you something that evolved via trial and error.

Looking across the current political landscape I can see numerous examples of Dr. Cochrane's "God Complex". Rather than stepping back to re-evaluate when reality fails to conform to expectations both sides simply forge ahead.

They are subverting the most tried an true path to progress simply to salve thier own egos.

I'd actually find the situation rather depressing if there weren't such a rational case for optimism. You see, something the advocates of sustainability (be it fiscal or enviromental) inevitably fail to mention is that, by defininition, a situation that is in fact unsustainable will not be sustained.

From the 18th through the mid-19th century, whales were the primary source of heating and lamp oil. At its peak, whaling employed 70,000 people and was the United States’ fifth-largest industry. The industry was widely seen as unassailable, with advocates scoffing at would-be illumination substitutes like fossil fuels or electricity. Without whale oil, so the thinking went, the world would slide backward toward darkness.

Draw what political analogies you will.

The whales are still here and in a 1000 years so to will we.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The whales are still here and in a 1000 years so to will we.

Unless we're unsustainable.

Unsustainability...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... is a self-correcting deficiency.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

There are a whole hell of a lot fewer whales today than there were, though.

The problem is that trial and error has really, really high costs. "Error" isn't just error, it's failure. It's wasted resources. Now, error doesn't always counsel for a total systemic overhaul. For instance: the stimulus. We know that it didn't produce the expected numbers. However, both sides take different approaches. Liberals want another, bigger stimulus, and conservatives want austerity measures. Neither one is necessarily indicated solely by the failure of the original stimulus, but neither are they contraindicated. If you shoot a bear with a small-caliber rifle and it keeps running at you, the proper response is probably not to abandon the bigger, heavier guns you have with you in favor of trying to trap it under a falling tree that you'll cut down with your ax. You reassess and reach quickly for the .50-cal, and nobody says you have a "God Complex." You forge ahead. Viewed from a distance with insufficient nuance, though, this looks like a gun failed, and you forge ahead and try a gun again. Definition of insanity, right?

I think what you see as both sides "forging ahead" may simply be misdiagnosis. We don't really have terribly well-developed tools for objectively analyzing the total systemic impacts of a given policy. It may well be that both sides are correct - that both raising taxes and not raising taxes kill jobs. They simply could be having that effect on different sectors. The guy who can't afford to give health insurance can't attract competent workers because of that, and so does not expand his business, because government is not providing health care. Others, if gov't did provide health care, would be able to provide it at a lower cost, and thus have fewer resources to expand and create jobs. They're not mutually exclusive, but each side is only looking at their half of the data or argument, and thus missing the other side's valid arguments.

That's the problem - they could both be right, and still be wrong. They forge ahead (adjust for failure and attempt to rectify it within the existing theory) on their issues, and react with expansive, systemic statements about the failure and supposed impossibility of the other side's views. So just saying "trial and error" will fix things isn't a terribly useful solution, because you need to know how and why you failed to properly account for it.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The problem is that trial and error has really, really high costs."

Yet the benefits seem to outweigh the costs. Part of what I think the point of the OP is, is that in the larger scope, trial and error isn't just going on on the part of a company which conducts a series of tests, it's the whole society which conducts countless 'experiments' simultaneously, and it's in this simultaneous action in which real solutions rise to the surface much faster, than say, the glacial pace of one-at-a-time that a political solution typically operates on.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Quicker, but not necessarily quick enough. Take global warming. At this point, if the scientific projections are substantially correct, we've got a single shot (that may already be passing) to fix it. Trial and error is good overall, but cannot solve every problem. Sometimes, you need a God Complex solution because you have no other options.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I would concede the point if it could be shown how when dealing with complex systems that making up the totality of the global warming issue, that using the God Complex solution would prove any different than striking out blindly against an opponent you have no sufficient comprehension of.

Will the strike you throw end up landing a knockout punch, or will the 'opponent' use your single blow to turn your blow against you, sinking further into the mire? Once a God Complex approach is adopted, you end up committing to that single blow.

At this point, adaptation (trial and error) is the only logical solution to live in a world where global warming is a reality.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

^ what he said

Though i would also point out that thus far every prediction of inevitable doom has thus far failed to come true. Thus the logical conclusion is that our understanding of climate change is either incorrect or insufficient, in either case embracing a "god complex solution" is as potentially destructive as it is helpful.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Did you know that the warming predictions are within the margins of error of models from the 1980s. I've seen "the earth stopped warming in 1998" thrown about everywhere, which was kinda true, if you took 1998 as your baseline, until 2009. The problem is that 2010 was the hottest year on record and 10 of the top 11 years are all from this millennium. It takes pretty careful cherry picking to say that "every prediction of inevitable doom has thus far failed to come true".

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

No it doesn't because his statement was not questioning the reality of global warming, it was questioning what will result from that reality.

In the 1990's fearmongers were telling us that we had until the year 2000 to do something, then till the year 2010, then till 2015 and if we didn't get to carbon neutrality by those dates we were doomed to extinction.

Well here we sit in 2011 and still not extinct, in fact apart from some minor anomolies that are well within the normal range of weather patterns we don't actually see any impact from global warming.

Will we some day? Absolutely.

However there is no evidence whatsoever that global warming presents an existential threat to the human race, nor is there any evidence that it is a greater threat than the very real damage a crash course to carbon neutrality would cause (literally killing off somewhere between a fifth and a third of the human population)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I would have chosen climate change as a perfect example to the contrary (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503).

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I don't see how that is anything other than the proof of the success of the right wing noise machine.

You're drawing the wrong conclusion.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Even if the idea that "we" have a "single shot" is true the principle under discussion here does not imply that sometimes a God Complex is what is needed. Rather, it says that the problem will not be solved. If climate change is happening, if it is anthropogenic, a God Complex solution is not going to work. Human civilization is a chaotic system, not amenable to God Complex requirements of perfect unity and top-down comand and control.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The problem is that trial and error has really, really high costs.

Sure it does, and while you are correct in that one side or another may yet be proven either right or wrong, or more likely that both areright/wrong to a degree. Treial and error has also been shown to be the only 100% reliable way of achieving progress. How many ideas that were "exquisite on paper" completely imploaded upon being confronting reality?

Rather than trying to deny and mitigate these costs we should embrace them. Throw everything you got at the wall, see what sticks.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Show me a successful complex system, and I'll show you something that evolved via trial and error.

This is a good quote. Every complex system was designed to take into account as many variables as possible, but the important thing is that they were designed to be amendable, adaptable, with potential for evolution. You don't even have to look at policy for a simple example, just look at electronics or more specifically computer chips. Part of essential chip design is to create something that's scalable and upgradeable. If the smallest upgrade renders the chip unusable then it is a failed design.

So when in our history, we've adopted countless systems of running things based around sustainability, they weren't designed to only function in ideal circumstances- they were meant to attract flaws so that those flaws could be studied and applied toward a better system. That's human progress.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's a Timecube analysis if ever I saw one.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I assume you're refering to this guy (http://timecube.com/), in which case I ask how so?

It is...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... probably a different Timecube. I've seen the video. UL sees Timecubes everywhere.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's nonsensical and has nothing to do with anything related to an actual collapse or the seriousness of one.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And in the event of a collapse what do you consider to be the likley "worst case" scenario?

I would argue that it is nothing that unless your're predicting a nuclear holocaust it'll be nothing we haven't survived before. As such "the end of the world as we know it" is not something to be feared but something to be taken advantage of.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Victorian-age civilization. 6 billion humans are going nowhere.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Still not getting the connection to the OP.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

A victorian-age civilization? somehow I think we'll manage.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I might agree that the title of the OP regarding a collapse, and the subsequent text aren't necessarily as linked to one another as they could be, but the substance in the post itself and in the video is anything but nonsensical, and I find it hard to see how someone would come to that conclusion.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The title is a play on Dr. Strangelove's "How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bomb".

Imagine the ending of that film and then replace "Nuclear War" with "Social/Economic Crisis of the Week".

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I've been wanting to make a post on this subject forever, but couldn't think of a way to put it concisely.

Congratulations for succeeding where I didn't.

I'd like to nominate this for being 'recommended', if that's okay with the mods.

I agree.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is absurd to stress over things that people have survived in the past. Nor would I stress over things that might lead to my own death.

Precisely. Freedom works.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

"Government today is marshalling every resource and every means at its disposal to prop up a failing system of the past. Meanwhile, we live in completely new times. These new times are characterized by an international division of labor, global capital flows, digital information delivery, and the slow but systematic destruction of the establishment in media, banking, and finance. What is emerging to replace them is something that no government on the planet can stop. Markets will not be crushed and they will resist control as never before. These times, these new times, are not the nineteen thirties, when a few egg-heads in Washington can set most prices and wages and gather the captains of industry to cobble together business cartels. The economic and financial world moves at the speed of light and is so diffuse that no political authority can act quickly enough to control it. The establishment is going down. This is another reason that all believers in freedom have reason to rejoice today. In twelve to eighteen months from now it will be obvious that there is nothing the new administration can do to patch things up. Obama will be humbled before the market, just as Bush and Clinton were before him. This time the humbling will overwhelm any attempt to patch things up or put a spin on the much needed upheaval. Yes, there is suffering, thanks to what the Federal Reserve and its allies have done to us in past years, but as a student of the Austrian School, and a student of the history of liberty, you have the confidence and the clarity to see that freedom alone provides the answers. It is time for calm in the face of the storm. Let advocates of freedom be steadfast, rational, clear, and focused on the long term. Be of good cheer, and never stop pointing out the truth about freedom: the answer is not the Left, nor the Right, nor the State; the way out of this mess is freedom. It is time we defer to it and to the revolution in the satus quo that freedom implies and give up pretending as if any politician is going to be able to stop it. Thank you."

— Lew Rockwell, "Our Enemy, Inflation", address to the Mises Circle in Houston

Watch the YouTube Video (http://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7Ll4HS1QW9M%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded&h=xAQBGIG22)

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

also http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Can you explain the connection between the link and the OP, because it's not as obvious as simply leaving it here on its own would imply.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Sometimes a system that stops working so well is the result of outside interference, not inherent problems.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Relate this to the main idea of the OP: That of the "God Complex", and complex systems.

As I see it, complex systems are connected with all areas relating to human behavior and even most natural systems as well, so who or what comprises this "outside" you speak of?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Making it do something that it wasn't designed to do.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Well of course, but in the case of complex systems, they're not 'designed' to do any particular thing, at least not by mere human intent. They evolve and adapt according to unpredictable stimuli.

If you mean "they tried to make the system bend to their will", then yes that would be an example, but I'm not convinced that it's an example of that rather than one of taking advantage of the system as the conditions presented themselves.

Either way, I'm not defending anyone here, I'm just not seeing it as the clear cut example of a 'God Complex' as you suggest it is.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

Rather than stepping back to re-evaluate when reality fails to conform to expectations both sides simply forge ahead.

The problem is, "God Complex" types are very bad at recognizing that reality has failed to conform to their expectations. I have they same kinds of arguments with Libertarians as I do with Marxists.

You see, something the advocates of sustainability (be it fiscal or enviromental) inevitably fail to mention is that, by defininition, a situation that is in fact unsustainable will not be sustained.

I'm not sure why you would say this. The impending "not be[ing] sustained" situation is the whole point of bringing up the subject of sustainability. It's not some kind of systems fetish.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The problem is, "God Complex" types are very bad at recognizing that reality has failed to conform to their expectations.

This is an excellent point. While my own views/sympathies trend towards the libertarian end of the spectrum I must admit that there are a certain number of ideologues who commit to the same annoying fallacies as thier most despised opponents.

Personally I view the political spectrum as less "Liberal vs Conservative" and more "Centralized Power vs De-Centralized power" and in my opinion central planning has consistantly failed to deliver the goods.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

...in my opinion central planning has consistantly failed to deliver the goods.

Well, it's the reason we still have whales. ;)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

How so?

The reason we still have whales is that scarcity encouraged people to find alternate sources of energy.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

Even after the whale oil alternatives had been discovered, they were still headed toward extinction. It wasn't until a central planing body called the International Whaling Authority banned commercial whaling that the numbers began to bounce back.