So: a thought- is not death the end point across the board? No system
is infinite. No motion perpetual.
( Isn't that a primary reason for the solipsism we fall into so
easily, a knee-jerk attempt to compensate? While altruism can provide
more sustainable and long-lasting systems over the long run if we take
the risk?)
The economics of the enormous corn shipments to Rome from North
Africa two thousand years ago are nowhere in sight. The current
release of technologies resulting in 'high infant mortality rate' -
sudden death from a lack of sustaining interest by the public - is a
factor that businesses add to the bottom line. Okay, then
Our economics should be based on enhancing life without endangering
it further.
Yessirree. How?
What are possible tools or responses for this?
Barring (good) aliens coming in at the last moment (rats!) :
How long, if ever, do you-all think it may take for us to develop
reasonable, sustainable systems for anything? Do we already have some?
Where?
Think globally, write locally.
Thanks!
Tory
On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:
Ecology has no Contracts , no Enforcers and no Guilt nor Punishment.
All are rewarded with death. Every problem is solved with death. The
players
or actors treat each other as threats or opportunities. There is no
shared
consciousness. All actions are driven by Fear, or Hunger.
Ecology is a theft based system and that is in part why economics is a
rationalized mess trying to hide its origins. This idealization of the
Natural is a devious method of unraveling civilization to restore
basic
selfishness. It is Natural to be Selfish. It is unnatural to be
Ethical.
Starting at the lowest level of picking fruit and having a "Bowel
Movement"
there are no willing participants. Ecology is made up of solipsistic
entities with no awareness of a group dynamic. There are the
powerful and
then there are the edible. The fact that most ecological systems were
relatively closed allowed for some measure of stability. When humans
intrude
into a stable system the new exploitation takes great adjustment
before
reaching stability. Native societies can survive in harmony with
nature at
very low population densities. There is a price to pay , high infant
mortality and reduced lifespans. (No IPods). I think economic theory
is
uniquely human and though components appear derived from ecological
principles this is minor. No other species attempts to regulate
itself in
opposition to selfish interests. I admit our success is questionable
but the
intent is definitely something uniquely Human and definitely no longer
solipsistic.
There is great danger in idealizing ecology as more pure than human
economics. Theft and murder are intrinsic to ecology as is waste
pollution
and wreckless damages. The fact that any ecosystems ever stabilized is
marvelous but human beings can not emulate such a system and adhere to
civilized ideals.
Certainly we can model ecology, but why do we imagine we have anything
relevant to learn about economics? Perhaps we can better understand
the
consequences of our appetites but we should not idealize ecology.
I worry that the transformation of the discussion towards specific
terms
such as demand driven or supply driven is fallacious. The solipsists
will
eat as much as they can until they despoil the region. Our economics
should
be based on enhancing life without endangering it further. If an
Australian
farmer needs to eradicate Mice he should do so in a manner that does
not
leave residual consequences. If we need to compete with rats to
improve
grain production in India we have the power to do so. There was no
need for
a Right since ecology does not dispense rights or entitlements. Rats
had no
regret about the destruction of the Dodo bird. If we use economics
to give
ourselves the supposed freedom to annihilate a species as the rat
has done
then it is just trickery. That trickery serves only to assuage our
guilt
over behaving like rats. On the other hand if we use intellect to
find a
moral or ethical balance that would distinguish us from every other
living
agent. We struggle so hard to give ourselves the right to act like
rats
while deluding ourselves that we are nearer to the Almighty.
Ecology works because every living thing is rewarded with death. It
is so
Draconian that there is no point in acting responsibly or ethically.
The
good and the bad are treated equally. Idealizing nature should be
confined
to poetry and decorative arts and should not intrude upon human
economics.
We are as humans attempting to find a middle ground between opposing
evils.
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
vbur...@shaw.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
On Behalf
Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: October 17, 2010 4:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology
Both systems can be viewed as complex
adaptive systems consisting of many interacting
agents that adapt and learn from their interactions
with one another:
system: economic system - ecosystem
agent: organism - company
interaction: food webs - supply chains
One major difference is perhaps what the
agents do with their supply, the agents
of ecosystems are more "selfish":
* Organisms consume s.th. to produce more of
themselves, they maintain themselves with food,
and they produce stuff necessary to make more
copies of themselves. Agent and product are
identical.
* Companies consume s.th. to produce a product
which is different from themselves. Agent and
product are different.
On the one hand, economic systems are more
complex and more differentiated than ecologic
systems. Companies can consume other companies
to produce larger companies and to maintain
themselves, but they also generate a product
which is independent from themselves.
On the other hand, ecologic systems are much
more sophisticated, since they are unbeatable in
green technology, regenerative energy and natural
recycling ;-)
-J.
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Abbott
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: Alexandre Lomovtsev ; Shuger,Debora ; Porter,Edith
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:35 AM
Subject: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology
I've been thinking about the differences between our economic system
and a
natural ecology. Since I'm not an expert in either I'm writing this
in the
hope that someone who is will clarify any issues I get wrong.
It seems to me that a fundamental difference is that natural
ecologies are
supply-driven. By that I mean that the supply of resources (food,
sunshine,
etc.) is the primary determinant of how the ecology functions. (I'm
not
talking here about transitions when a species invades an ecology and
upsets
the pre-existing balance. I want to focus at least at the beginning on
ecologies that have achieved a fairly stable state.) In such ecologies
fairly well-defined food webs are established. These determine the
sizes of
the various populations, etc. Of course there are or can be cycles
such as
the standard predator-prey cycle. But even in these cases, the whole
thing
is supply driven. It's what's available (primarily to be eaten) that
determines everything else.
Our economic system is for the most part supply-driven. The economy
is not
completely detached from the need for basic energy and other natural
resource supplies. If there are supply shocks in these areas, the
economy
will feel them. But for the most part what most people do (as economic
agents) depends on whether someone is willing to pay them. That
means that
most people are dependent on the demand (for their services) rather
than the
supply (of available food). Our current economic situation
illustrates that
very well. We are currently demand-deficient. Not enough people want
to buy
enough things (or services) to keep us all employed. This seems very
strange
and artificial. That so much of the economy depends on demand rather
than
supply makes it very vulnerable to the kind of problems we face today.
But as I said, our economy is not completely demand driven. We are
still
supply dependent. Working with others I'm hoping to build a model that
illustrates where the tipping point is. When does a supply-driven
ecology
become a demand-dependent economy? Is it a sharp phase transition?
Can it be
characterized in terms of other properties? Comments are welcome.
-- Russ Abbott
______________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Google voice: 424-242-USA0 (last character is zero)
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
______________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-----------------------------------
Tory Hughes
victo...@toryhughes.com
Tory Hughes website
Tory Hughes facebook
------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
