[FRIAM] ** this Wednesday** Lecture May 31 12:30p - Carlos Gershenson: A General Methodology for Designing Self-Organizing Systems

[Bill Eldridge]

Phil wrote:
> Carlos
>   
>
>> If the complexity growth would fade away, I don't see civilization  
>> collapsing, so I don't understand why do you say that we rely on  
>> increasing complexity, nor why this might be dangerous.
>>     
> Oh yes, there are options if we respond to the danger on the horizon.
> At present stability requires constant % increases in investment and
> returns = exploding complexity.  That's what growth is, and has been for
> a few hundred years.
There's a good amount of growth these days based on trying to improve 
efficiency,
workflow, best practices, processes, etc. Part of the quality movement 
is about gains
made in eliminating waste and eliminating reviews, and instead having 
quality as an
up-front and intrinsic effort. Major layoffs by large companies these 
days are often
a sign of improved efficiency (and sometimes go hand-in-hand with 
additional hiring
of different types of positions). Certainly there's the traditional 
investment-driven
growth, but I think a lot of people are trying to reduce complexity 
while maintaining
the gains and responding faster as a result. I remember Leary commenting 
that in
2012 all this exponential growth would come to a head, but I don't see 
it as just
willy-nilly growth.


>   Humans being creatures of habit and unable to
> imagine the complexities of the physical systems that were doing it get
> used to such things.  There's also an interesting special deception,
> that throughout the growth process it has appeared 'the sky is falling',
> to conservatives and older people because economic growth is a
> continuously revolutionary process which upsets old ways of doing things
> without clearly displaying what new ways are being built.   I get my
> comfort in discussing growth system dynamics from 30 years of closely
> watching all kinds and figuring out why its so hard to build models of
> them.
>
>   
In some ways, the sky is falling, and falling faster and faster.
The US has been doing a pretty good job of adapting to that change, and 
getting more used to
continual obsolescence. In some ways we're reaching a philosophical 
outlook antithetical
to traditional Amero-European society, in that stability becomes a 
barrier to progress.
I'm not sure that old people are that worried anymore - I sense more of 
an attitude of
wonderment and possibility. But also to put things in perspective, the 
developments
from around 1860-1920 impacted the lives of Westerners much more 
radically than
anything since.
>>> I definitely think we should
>>> make government competent by design.   There are lots of do's and  
>>> don'ts
>>> regarding performance measures, but if departments developed
>>> concepts of
>>> productivity beyond just bean counter efficiency, having internal  
>>> groups
>>> competing would be highly very productive.
>>>       
>> Indeed, there are many things to be improved. Some people 
>> might think  
>> that there is no pressure for improving services. That is the case  
>> when there is no political choice (like in dictatorships or pseudo- 
>> democracies). But if there are competing political forces, they will  
>> try to improve government to gain more votes. So, slowly (maybe too  
>> slowly), but surely, we're getting there...
>>     
> Yes, but only half way.   One of the fascinating aspects of our societal
> response lags failure is the 'stop fixing it' movement of the new right
> over the past 40 years.  People had the choice and were drawn into the
> illusion that the intrusiveness of government response to the complexity
> of the world we're building would be solved by dismantling the
> government response, rather than finding a better way to address our
> growing problems.  My observation is that every complaint has some
> validity and should be constructively combined rather than separated.
>
>   
We've done a better job at dampening economic cycles than we have at 
dampening political
cycles. I think we're farther away from over-idealistic impressions of 
what government can do,
which is good, but now we have idealistic impressions of what government 
can't do. Instead
it would be better to have good models of what factors make for 
effective government in the
real world, including the recurring motions of balances and corruption 
of power, . I imagine it would
also fall into the "sky continually falling" motif, and without too much
stasis or unilateral motion. If that's true, a biparty system tends to 
drift off into the extremes too
often in the cycle, whereas a multiparty system would be better at 
balancing and instead of a heavy
pendulum, the weight stays towards the center of the zone. But then 
maybe that's our odd advantage vs.
Europe, where we tack radically left and right and move much faster than 
if stayed a center
course.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060604/08143c1e/attachment.htm