[FRIAM] health care logistics

Mon Jan 24 14:09:14 EST 2022

Eric, your link didn't work.  Could you please re-send.  Thanks.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:01 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> At first, I struggled to see how this mapped to health care logistics. But
> on 2nd read, it clearly does.
>
> The question that now dominates is a) shared values - even if it's
> overshoot and we know it's overshoot, do the exploiters (and their
> rhetorical victims) care at all about the same things the ... "earthists"
> or "humanists" or "biodiversisists" might care about? And b) nonlinear
> exploitation power - orthogonal to shared values, is it possible the
> space/landscape has changed so radically that the tiny produce we now
> exploit might have a huge impact going forward? (Or, maybe vice versa,
> every Joule we squeeze out now has a much smaller impact than the Joules we
> extracted in the '60s?)
>
> Those questions translate to health care in the form of motivation
> comparison between, e.g., pharma employees. Some are in it for the science.
> Some are in it for the money. Some are humanitarians. Etc. Do the
> executives share the values of their employees? A little? A lot? The same
> with insurance undewriters, financialists at hospitals and offices, etc.
>
> Technically, it's completely reasonable to NOT implement bootstrappable
> systems, systems "written in" themselves. We've talked a lot on this list
> about self-reference and if/where we use the words "tautology" or
> "degeneracy". Even if we assume the shared value that earth is just the
> initial *seed* for life and that seed will be a dried up husk when we
> diaspora into the galaxy, *when* will we have to solve the sustainability
> question? Perhaps we should solve it for our 2nd planet? Or maybe we
> iterate slowly from our current non-bootstrapping algorithm of "growth"
> toward an algorithm of sustainable?
>
> The same argument goes for the Big Software argument proffered By Dr.
> Coon. Sure open source packages developed by some kid in Iowa shouldn't
> found the entire Java-based infrastructure. But, similarly, not every piece
> of crypto or opsec needs to come from Israel or the NSA. Can we move
> between and within Big Software and hacking? Can we move between Growth and
> Sustainability?
>
> And more importantly, should we all agree on values, like some fascist
> state? Or is there room for reasonable disagreement or meandering
> non-equilibria?
>
> On 1/21/22 13:00, David Eric Smith wrote:
> > Some of the condensations in this thread, as causal interpretations of
> social dynamics, are real gems.  They are much more interesting as claims
> than the endlessly recycled platitudes that seem to be all I am seeing in
> punditry.
> >
> > I have wondered about sending the following to the list, but this is
> probably a good thread in which to do it:
> > https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html <
> https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i15p4508-d601755.html>
> >
> > The claims are about important things.  They say that the sustainability
> rhetoric is so riddled with pie in the sky that it is not clear that an
> analysis of what we can actually do would even support goal-setting along
> the lines that are currently practiced.  For certain apps built on the
> libraries of sustainability, like the rhetoric of Green New Deal, the
> most-central aspiration (not curtailing population and energy consumption,
> and just replacing their sources) may actually be impossible in the sense
> that perpetual motion machines are impossible.  The other important factor
> is that we don’t get the dodge “but in the long run”, because the claim is
> that in a relatively short run we are all dead (or at least a great many of
> us, and the rest have greatly reduced options for what to do about
> anything).
> >
> > The important thing about the article (I know the author Rees) is that
> it tries to back up its claims with analysis where possible.  Some of the
> citations I consider a bit dodgy, but others are probably sound.  That does
> _not_ mean I am claiming the conclusions of the paper are right.  I haven’t
> done any shred of the work it would take me to backfill that tree of
> citations and take responsibility for deciding which of them I understand
> to be right.
> >
> > It is also important (to me, for my own reasons) to say that I do not
> mean _any_ blame for hypocrisy or bad faith toward a lot of the serious
> sustainability people, or even the GND advocates.  They work partly in a
> realm of human persuasion, and they are trying not to let the perfect
> undermine doing _something_ that might be good, or at least a little
> better.  I don’t know how many of the GND rhetoricians even have a detailed
>  understanding of our current situation, and among those (if there are
> any), how many would agree that it is as bad as Rees asserts.  There might
> be some, who would still do what persuasion they can because they don’t
> have ideas for what might be more helpful.
> >
> > I should also add that there is a lot not covered in this particular
> paper, where I have listened to claims of large unavoidable cascading
> failures.  Climate change leading to failure of Himalayan snowpacks that
> are the headwaters of rivers that supply drinking water, sanitation,
> irrigation, and hydropower to something like 1/4 of the world’s population,
> through infrastructure that has been built over a century, and can’t simply
> be moved or replaced.  That stops working and people start moving, and then
> all the stresses we already see around migration get amplified to much
> higher levels.  etc.  Those, too, I have not tried to either evaluate or
> get sources I can trust blindly.  But if they are real, they belong in view
> as well.
> >
> > Finally, I want to distance myself a bit from the affect and some
> overall impression in this piece, or by these authors.  I have no interest
> in whether something is heterodox or any other kind of dox.  The
> misanthropy that comes through in their scornful delivery in places, but
> also their claim that there are “graceful” exits with so little as 1-child
> policies, are to me departures (understandable, but still departures) from
> the thing that makes the article valuable, which is the substance of its
> claims about what exists and what can be assembled into systems.  I think
> one can keep the claims as important questions and let the other stuff go
> its own ways.
> >
> > Anyway, more than I know how to chew on,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:47 AM, glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, except that this solipsism betrays a profound similarity between
> the cheerful billionaire exploiter and the unfixable deplorables. It's
> almost psychotically self-centered. I can imagine a slow, corrupting
> process where I would if I could, as well. But that transformation would
> have to be complete closure to prevent any light of empathy or sympathy
> from peeking in and popping the boil.
> >>
> >> I suppose people like Gates are more interesting than Musk, shambling
> about extruding money according to an opaque template ... less
> transparently ideological than Musk's profiteering. All philanthropy smacks
> of this sort of thing, though, Effective Altruism being the worst of the
> bunch. Power corrupts. It's not a lesson the non-powerful can actually
> learn, though. So it's a good thing to keep around a nicely scaled
> gradation of the super rich and the destitute poor, with some walkability
> up and down the scale. That way we can, as a collective, re-learn the
> lesson that power corrupts on a steady basis. The assumption of equality
> prevents that lesson from being re-learned. The absurdity of philanthropy
> and poverty are "collateral damage" in service of the latent trait, spoken
> as a well-off white man born into a racist patriarchy, anyway.
> >>
> >> On 1/21/22 08:31, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> >>> If anything, Musk is suspicious because he is not overtly apocalyptic.
>   Some criticisms of Don’t Look Up were along the lines that it fails to
> try to persuade a change of course in favor of being condescending.  That
> was the whole point of the movie:  Comic relief among the reasonable who
> must suffer those who are just unfixable.  Musk is amusing because he is
> cheerful going about his billionaire life as it all comes crashing down.
> Doing what he can to profit from insane energy policy of the last several
> generations and making what contingency plans he can.  I certainly would if
> I could.
> >>>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:48 AM, glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This video essay concludes with the same point:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Fake Futurism of Elon Musk
> >>>> https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y <https://youtu.be/5OtKEetGy2Y>
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps a better title would have been "Muskian Futurism is
> Eschatological". But there's some deeper stuff there in the middle of the
> video about the appeal of geezers like Sanders to "the youth", perhaps
> dovetailing with our prior discussion of the [opt|pess]imism vs
> hope-despair plane. The mistake the Muskians seem to make is conflating
> Musk's "apocalyptic help the rich survive the end times capitalism" with
> the good old fashioned future orientation of classic science fiction ...
> and, perhaps, even the optimistic glossing of the present by authors like
> Steven Pinker. While Pinker seems to be a hypnotized neoliberal cultist,
> his views still retain some sense of "shared values" in the Enlightenment,
> where something, vague as it is, like equality founds the whole
> perspective. Egalitarian utopias like Star Trek were, it seemed to me,
> standard fare for classic sci-fi. Gibson, Blade Runner, et al turned that
> dark and brought us (perhaps correlated with the rise of Hell and
> >>>> Brimstone Christianity) to Muskianism.
> >>>>
> >>>> But this is all just from my nostalgizing as a dying white man. It
> would be interesting to see a disinterested historian present the plectic
> arcs.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/20/22 14:33, glen wrote:
> >>>>> Even if there are multiple paths to nearly equivalent optima, each
> unit (human, hospital, corporation, state) has to share some values with
> the others in order for the the optima to be commensurate.
> >>>>
>
> --
> glen
> Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  (303) 859-5609
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220124/ccf17ca5/attachment.html>