Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
The invention of laws and regulations is celebrated as great success principle of societies and they are, of course, important. However, a major part of social order is based on self-organization, which builds on simple social mechanism. These mechanisms have evolved over historical times and are the basis of the success or failure of civilizations. Currently, many people oppose globalization, because traditional social mechanisms fail to create cooperation and social order under globalized conditions that are increasingly characterized by homogeneous or random interactions. However, I will show that there are other social mechanisms such as reputation systems, which will work in a globalized world, too.
Via Complexity Digest
Eli Levine's insight:
We could be approaching something fantastically cool, if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime.
Ground- and aircraft-based measurements show that the seasonal amplitude of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations has increased by as much as 50 per cent over the past 50 years. This increase has been linked to changes in temperate, boreal and arctic ecosystem properties and processes such as enhanced photosynthesis, increased heterotrophic respiration, and expansion of woody vegetation. However, the precise causal mechanisms behind the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 seasonality remain unclear. Here we use production statistics and a carbon accounting model to show that increases in agricultural productivity, which have been largely overlooked in previous investigations, explain as much as a quarter of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 seasonality. Specifically, Northern Hemisphere extratropical maize, wheat, rice, and soybean production grew by 240 per cent between 1961 and 2008, thereby increasing the amount of net carbon uptake by croplands during the Northern Hemisphere growing season by 0.33 petagrams. Maize alone accounts for two-thirds of this change, owing mostly to agricultural intensification within concentrated production zones in the midwestern United States and northern China. Maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans account for about 68 per cent of extratropical dry biomass production, so it is likely that the total impact of increased agricultural production exceeds the amount quantified here.
Via Niklaus Grunwald
Eli Levine's insight:
The smoking gun.
But will the science deniers, clinging to some ideology or belief or self-destructive interest admit to it?
Leave this strain of the species behind.
Let them be ignored and allowed to die off, on their own.
I'm tired of tacitly protecting them.
|Rescooped by Eli Levine from Welfare, Disability, Politics and People's Right's|
Citizens' wellbeing is rising to the top of the political agenda in Britain. Just yesterday the government and its partners announced a What Works Centre for Wellbeing which initially has over £3.5 million over three years to investigate the d
Not too light that the work becomes unproductive, yet not too hard that it takes away from productivity. Pay decent wages with profits, even for low skilled employment, and don't sweat the short term profits so much. That's sanity and sustainability. Anything else is abuse or unsustainable.
I hypothesize that a first step to understanding how a government is working with its society is to map it out as a network relative to society. The object is to know how a government is directly and indirectly affecting a society in its present condition. From there, you can do research on how the government is affecting the parts of society it is reaching, which parts of society it is not reaching, and how it is not reaching those parts. From there, you can run computer experiments to see whether there is anything a government can do to change its structure, content, and/or behavior relative to a society and environment, thus enabling the search for optimal positions and policies that the government can take. If you can evaluate and track indicators within a society, you can effectively work to discover the society's "vital" measures, know how those are impacted by government, the environment, or the society's agents themselves.
It should be noted that economic indicators are lumped into the social indicators automatically and are considered a measure of the society's vitality, potential, sustainability, and survivability. Economies are networks as well and can be integrated into the larger social network graph as a "layer" that can be added to the overall graph. This can hypothetically be an integrated "overview" layer of the social world, kind of like how we can map out the networks of police, fire protection, healthcare, sewage, electricity, Internet, education, water, food, finance, taxation, goods, and service coverage that exists within and composes a society and it's economy independent of each other, with other parts, or all together, to get a comprehensive view of the social organism and the governmental organ relative and within the social organism.
In the end, it's all networks, overlapping, connecting, binding, flexing, and adapting to changing environmental, geological, geographical, political, social, and economic factors. The first step is to map it all out. The next step is to learn how parts affect other parts. The final step is to understand how to make those key decisions and choices within these networks such that you do the least amount of actual harm while doing the most amount of actual good. Reality is the judge; no human has that ability. The policies and actions will either work, not work, or work differently than was anticipated. Once we figure out how to map these networks and interconnected "small world" networks, we can begin to make more informed choices from government with regards to the policies we pursue, the laws and programs we draft to accomplish these policy aims, and how we enact and execute the laws and programs to maximize utility for the SOCIETY, which in turn, maximizes utility for the government and its members.
You want to govern forever?
I know that that is generally feasible, provided you've got a good heart, a good brain, a Hell of a sense of self interest, a genuine empathetic sense towards others' feelings and needs, the ability to admit mistakes and make real changes within yourself and within organizations' policies and procedures, and to communicate effectively with the lay public, such that you listen for what they need, and they actually comprehend what you're doing, why you're doing it to get those needs satisfied.
This is a BASIC model of how to develop and operate a government based on my comprehension of things as of 10/28/2014 CE. It is what will, I think, most likely stand the test of time in principle, if not entirely in practice throughout the changing conditions of humanity, its environment, and the universe as a whole. It will need to first, be accepted by the individual societies of the world before it can worked into the individual societies and cultures according to their own networked organizations and own processes of operating the network. This is not a one-size fits all solution by any stretch of the imagination. It is just a hypothesis for how to begin producing a government that operates in line with natural laws rather than on only the beliefs, sentiments, biases, opinions, and ignorance of individual human beings. Its aim is to honestly help the public in a self-interested fashion, from the perspective of the policy-maker and for the public that is served by the given government.
Map first. Study second. Experiment third. Execute fourth. Hold off all changes and experiments in practice until the first three stages are completed first.
May this benefit all living beings, on Earth, and beyond, from now, until the end of time, and beyond.
Here are some observations and insights that were shared on social media this past fortnight. I call these Friday’s Finds.
“We don’t see something until we have the right metaphor to let us perceive it.” – Thomas Kuhn – via @tobiasmeyer
“Humans require the difficult and messy social routing protocol of trust.” – Valdis Krebs @orgnet – via @voinonen
“What if sucessful projects having a plan is just survivior bias?” – @drunkcod
Half-baked ideas – by @kmpinner #PKMastery
Way cool network science.
This is a way of modeling and making sense of our world, even if it's not a perfectly accurate way of constructing our social and environmental worlds. Now, to put these techniques into practice and study, to see if we can govern and manage our world more effectively with this metaphor.
I honestly don't think Americans appreciate the relative seriousness of our present situation. We have dysfunctional leadership in our government from all sides, which renders our ability as a nation to function in jeopardy. Our public doesn't know what to do or how to act as the leadership cadre that it is within the society, therefore rendering all efforts to change and hold our government leadership accountable ineffectual. We're suffering from several small cuts with an increasing probability of an x event occurring, along the lines of the 2007-8 Recession or rebellion and destabilization of significant portions of our society. Nobody seems willing to accept these facts for the sake of ego and/or petty false senses of security, therefore, nothing is going to be done about them until it is too late.
America's "greatness" is not innate. It has to be produced through the efforts of the public and government leadership working together for the common goals of survival, health, well-being, and quality of life. The two cannot work against each other all the time without creating significant damage to all sides. The combative, confrontational, and anti-social, hyper-competitive American system is going to fail, and I doubt we will actually rebuild with any real lessons learned. In my view, the main culprit for this is the general public, because they are the ones who can always hold a leadership in check through voting and mass organization. However, when it comes time to follow through on such actions, the American public bumbles, stumbles, and falls right back to where they started. The leaderships in government don't make it any easier for our whole society to do better. However, if the public were motivated enough, they could rise above and overcome the members of our government.
It's our fault, America.
And you are not likely to hold yourself or the government to account. The public does not check the government. The government takes advantage and goes right into the arms of those who do have money and the ability to regularly participate. We've dropped the ball, America. What are we going to do about it?
Bill Gates' critique of Thomas Piketty is revealing for what it overlooks
From what I understand, you attempt to do some good in this world with your wealth. However, from what I understand, your Foundation generally subjects its recipients to a Hellish bureaucratic process that may take away from their ability to do any real good. On top of that, your monopsony may very well have slowed the progress of software development because of your anti-social business practices.
Let me cut to the chase here, for the people who actually will read this: there is no such thing as an honorable person who has gained so much through business through denying so much to so many. If you seek to live on the charity of the rich, you are going to starve. Case in point, the top earners are actually giving less to charity than all those below them (see the Chronicle of Philanthropy study on the matter). There is no excuse for amassing so much wealth and relative power, and then dangling it over the heads of those who need it the most.
We need a social system, as opposed to the anti-social one that people like Mr. Gates uses to make their wealth. We need to make growth work for everyone, so that work pays off and people are not exploited for their labor and denied opportunities to develop their talents. Most of the mundane tasks are likely going to be done by machines anyway. What are we then to do with ourselves when labor is valued at the cost and maintenance of machines, and there are no jobs left? Will we, as a society, actually consign ourselves to the pseudo-benevolence and will of these "demi-god" wannabes? I will fight and die to defend myself and my children from such a future. My price is too high for even Mr. Gates to afford (and I do have a price, because I understand the costs of doing "business" with "people" like Mr. Gates.
Which side of the fence are you going to be on? Are you going to side with them? Or are you going to side with the rest of us actual human beings?
The choice is up to you all, America. I wish you nothing but the actual best, although I suspect you're going to lead yourselves into the actual worst before you get better.
I am prepared to fight and die for the sake of my population and my own life. What are you going to do, dear reader, when that choice comes before you?
That is all I have to say for now. Please, do what you will. I'm indifferent.
My younger brother informed me about this operating system. While I have never used it, it nevertheless struck me how similar it was in principle to how societies and, perhaps, even whole ecosystems and universes organize themselves. Even if this is not a 100% accurate model for societies and social organizations, it nevertheless seems to be an interesting method of modeling and explaining how they are, grow, develop, evolve, and function, both through the bottom-up workings of its code and its top-down programmatic functions. It is a potential way of describing and working with the complexity of social systems as interdependent, interconnected, and somewhat modular within the context of an ecological and cosmological system. This is not some hippy-dippy notion of the universe, but one that could potentially be used as a tool for scientific and evidenced-based management of ourselves, individually and collectively, within the context of our environment and our universe.
Popular insurgent warfare is probably the strongest form of warfare, because it does not obey the strategies, logistical constraints, or sociological "rules" of modern warfare or the tactics of the already strong. Those who can hit and fade into the background of a society are the most powerful fighters, because those who have the military might cannot strike at them without ensuring that they themselves get hit as a result of striking at the general population from which the rebel fighters come from. The police and military become outsiders in the community. Nobody wants to side or work with them and everyone is willing to give shelter and aid to the rebel fighters. How is this? Because the public aligns with the rebel fighters rather than the police or military forces. The Federal troops are outsiders and the police are alienated from the communities they're supposed to enforce law in. This is the energy that fuels insurgent warfare; not money, or resources. If you want to defeat the rebels definitively, you must make sure that they (the rebels) are the ones who are self-alienating forces. Make sure that you maintain good relations with the general public and, quite frankly, out-govern the rebels.
Government, in any of its forms, must compete with the various factions of society who wish to dismantle it and establish their own order in society. It is not a monetary competition, but a non-monetary one, where the measure of success is significantly more complex and complicated than the measure of success for businesses and personal profiteers. These are life and death stakes, literally, in some cases. Please, do not underestimate the influence and power of the society that you are governing WITHIN (not over) when you are making your policy choices and decisions.
Please. I don't want to be compelled to fight against the government and its members for the sake of preserving this society. I WILL join the battalions who will lock horns with the current government for the sake of preserving this human society in which I live. Life is not worth living under the oppressive hand of pure financial profiteering logic. I will die fighting the forces of current capitalism than live under their beliefs, logics, and philosophies as to how the world ought to be and should function. As far as I'm concerned, it's death either way for me. I might as well attempt to make my death be useful for the rest of the public than be worth nothing as a quiet and meek follower of the incorrect assumptions about how economies work and what economies are.
That is all I've got to say at this moment.
Please do not mistake me for someone who makes idle threats.
That is all.