<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:e0b5394e-bb77-48fc-a646-74868b6e03c8@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/shrinking-economies-dont-innovate">https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/shrinking-economies-dont-innovate</a>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <p>I am fond of this style of (counter)thinking to the
      growth/innovation topic:</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><a
href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919310067"
          class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Economics for the Future: Beyond
          the Superorganism</a></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>It doesn't really argue the point (natalism and other
      quantitative measures of growth?) directly but perhaps transcends
      it?</p>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:e0b5394e-bb77-48fc-a646-74868b6e03c8@gmail.com">There's
      something about this rhetoric that seems to rely on hierarchical
      separation, the separability of levels.</blockquote>
    <br>
    <p>Also, I'm interested in an expanded/continued discussion about
      the role of "levels" and "hierarchy" if anyone else will take up
      the task with you/us... <br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:e0b5394e-bb77-48fc-a646-74868b6e03c8@gmail.com">
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:e0b5394e-bb77-48fc-a646-74868b6e03c8@gmail.com"> I mean,
      obviously, if we draw a hard boundary around "innovation" such
      that it only contains things we human organisms care about or
      understand, then sure. Innovation halts/slows with birth rate. But
      isn't, say, the evolution of our gut biome also "innovative"? Or
      totally sans-human, isn't most of earth's history a story of
      innovation? What is it about the human-particular level of
      (primarily cultural) innovation that makes it so special? If I'm
      cynical, it's just navel gazing.
      <br>
      <br>
      But if I'm generous, there's something inherently computational
      (or universal, cognitive, translational, or Platonic) about the
      kind of innovation Hanson's talking about. I guess it's a
      longtermist or transhumanist way of thinking ... that Our
      innovations can possibly be stored and percolated more so than the
      modest, tightly bound to circumstances, innovations of our less
      computational sibling species. I don't buy it. But I'd like to be
      able to make the argument anyway.
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <p>My current favorite out-of-my-league thinker about some of these
      abstractions is <a
href="https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/08/25/intrinsic-incompleteness-deacon-on-ententional-processes/">Terrence
        Deacon</a> (referenced here often) who seems to play both sides
      of the fence, implying on one hand that <i>Hierarchy</i> and <i>Levels
        of Organization</i> are intrinsic to evolving Complex Adaptive
      Systems, yet also coins the somewhat mystical term <i>"Absential"
      </i>which might be nothing more than a fancy word for "system
      constraints and boundaries" built into the very idea of self/other
      (which I know you also often question which is probably highly
      related).  Another fancy word I've come to like is <i>"Ententional"</i>
      which combines the ideas of what something is "about" with what it
      is "for".<br>
    </p>
    <p>This leads me around to Deacon's "Teleodynamics" which might be
      obliquely related to your invocation recently of a physics
      "Lagrangian vs Eulerian" rather than the Anthropological "Emic vs
      Etic" axis of understanding first-third person,
      reductionist-holistic, nominal-real perspectives?   This also
      leads me back around to the (nearly) ineffable discussion of
      Stationary Action revisited from time to time here?</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary-action_principle#Disputes_about_possible_teleological_aspects"
          class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary-action_principle#Disputes_about_possible_teleological_aspects</a></p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Also worth noting that this is an instrumental part of Ted
      Chiang's <a
        href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Your_Life">Story of
        Your Life</a> (2000 novella which was made into the movie
      Arrival which I felt obscured some of the best points made in the
      story).</p>
    <p>It is possible that I channel his Alien Heptapods with my
      frequent (ab)use of <a
        href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_embedding">linguistic
        center embedding</a> and other (awkward?) constructions?</p>
    <p><i>I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but
        I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I
        meant.</i></p>
  </body>
</html>