[FRIAM] for the optimists

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Interesting. This stuff pushed me to compare the recent Democracy Index <https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/> ranking to the Human Development ranking <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/download-data>.

> cor(divhdi$DI.Rank,divhdi$HDI.Rank,method="spearman")
[1] 0.7504991
> cor(divhdi$DI.Rank,divhdi$HDI.Rank,method="kendall")
[1] 0.5737355

An interesting case is Lesotho, which has a much higher HDI rank than DI rank ... I'd say that counts as a "Flawed Democracy". 8^D Attached is a plot of Δ(DI,HDI), where a high number means bad democracy good development. And a low number means good democracy bad development. I suppose it would be interesting to use a 4 dimensional structure that included both money and tech as extra dimensions.

On 7/1/21 11:17 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I heard Freeman Dyson speak at LANL in the mid-late 80s, I think it was a rehash of his "Giffords Lecture" at Aberdeen, on the topic of the risks/hazards/weaknesses of Big Science.   I found it profound at several levels, not least of which was the audience he was delivering it to (Scientists almost exclusively in pursuit of and funded by Big Science (tm) ).    Part of his technique in winning us over was to describe an out-of-scale Soviet project that either failed or had harsh/weird unintended (expected?) consequences, then handing us one of our own in contrast... often equally absurd/painful.   Plowshare and the Soviet version comes to mind.  
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion>
> 
> Nuclear fracking in the 4 corners comes to mind... right here in our region.
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting popular article on the topic of the downside of Big Science, with a relevant Dyson quote:
> 
>     https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/27/us/big-science-it-worth-price-periodic-look-largest-new-research-projects-heavy.html <https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/27/us/big-science-it-worth-price-periodic-look-largest-new-research-projects-heavy.html>
> 
>    
> 
>     Dr. Freeman Dyson, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, said in his book, ''Infinite in All Directions,'' that some of the big projects take so long to build that they are virtually obsolete when completed.
> 
>     ''The cutting edge of science moves rapidly,'' he said. ''The bigger and more ambitious the missions become, the more difficult it is to reconcile the time scale of the missions with the time scale of science.''
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_in_All_Directions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_in_All_Directions>
> 
> I have not read Dyson's "Infiinite in all Directions" but I appreciate the gist of it as reviewed:
> 
>     The lectures were given in two series, and this book is accordingly divided into two parts.
>     Part 1 is about life as a scientific phenomenon, about our efforts to understand the nature of life and its place in the universe.
>     Part 2 is about ethics and politics, about the local problems introduced by our species into the existence of life on this planet.^[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_in_All_Directions#cite_note-Dyson2004-1> 
> 
> On 7/1/21 10:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>> Your Book Review: Where's My Flying Car?
>> https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-wheres-my-flying
>>
>> Is the following claim made by the author of the book (Hall - seemingly accepted by the author of the review) largely accurate? I ask because it's a common liberal talking point that publicly funded R&D has resulted in the majority of the tech we rely on in *modern* life. I'm terrible at history.
>>
>>> Hall blames public funding for science. Not just for nanotech, but for actually hurting progress in general. (I’ve never heard anyone before say government-funded science was bad for science!) “[The] great innovations that made the major quality-of-life improvements came largely before 1960: refrigerators, freezers, vacuum cleaners, gas and electric stoves, and washing machines; indoor plumbing, detergent, and deodorants; electric lights; cars, trucks, and buses; tractors and combines; fertilizer; air travel, containerized freight, the vacuum tube and the transistor; the telegraph, telephone, phonograph, movies, radio, and television—and they were all developed privately.” “A survey and analysis performed by the OECD in 2005 found, to their surprise, that while private R&D had a positive 0.26 correlation with economic growth, government funded R&D had a negative 0.37 correlation!” “Centralized funding of an intellectual elite makes it easier for cadres, cliques, and the politically skilled to gain control of a field, and they by their nature are resistant to new, outside, non-Ptolemaic ideas.” This is what happened to nanotech; there was a huge amount of buzz, culminating in $500 million dollars of funding under Clinton in 1990. This huge prize kicked off an academic civil war, and the fledgling field of nanotech lost hard to the more established field of material science. Material science rebranded as “nanotech”, trashed the reputation of actual nanotech (to make sure they won the competition for the grant money), and took all the funding for themselves. Nanotech never recovered.
>>
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> 

-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: di-hdi-per-country.svg
Type: image/svg+xml
Size: 140680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210701/118711e7/attachment-0001.svg>