Economics 20/06/2010: Ideas that (allegedly) will change the world 2

Continuing with those 25 ideas for the 21st century:

Number 4:

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics, that every engineer knows well, says that the entropy of complex systems will inevitably increase over time. In other words, the system's capability will deteriorate. However, a more recent law, from evolutionary biology, says that the capability of complex systems evolves and improves over time. Engineering concepts guide not only machine designers, but also organization designers. Thus organizations are "engineered" and "reengineered," and "levers" are put in place for their masters to make the machine work and the organization to perform. …And in this concept, a boss on top with authority over the rest is necessary to put discipline into them.

In contrast, consider a rich tropical forest, humming with myriad forms of life supporting each other. Who is in charge? There is a mystery of organization in these forests. Complex self-adaptive systems, like the tropical forest, are organized according to the laws of evolutionary biology, and not the laws of machines.

[Ok, let’s pause and do take time to consider a rich tropical forest system. It is humming. Indeed, it is singing with individuals of various species consuming each other – not exactly a model for the ‘humanism’ of the contribution Number 3 to the list, is it? Over long run, entire species disappear. Not a real model for sustainable humanity. The balance of the forest eco-system is maintained by the precise order of life forms in the hierarchy of who kills whom. Not exactly a model for equality or for social mobility, or indeed for any sort of human rights. So if this stuff about ‘systems’ and ‘learning from the forests’ was to be really useful, it will have to apply only to hierarchical, non-horizontal or rights-based systems. A bit limiting, I’d say. By the way – in the tropical forest and indeed across the entire natural world, the one who’s on top of the food chain is “a boss on top with authority over the rest”… too bad Forbes’ visionary writing about this stuff didn’t bother to check it out himself by taking a camping trip to, say, Grizzly Bear territory armed with nothing more than a flashlight. He’d learn very quickly who’s the boss there and just how much ‘on top with authority’ this boss will get with our visionary]

“The first Enlightenment made man believe that he and his machines could master nature. [Well, we did master large chunks of the nature.] The second Enlightenment will come about with man learning from nature, and realizing that he is a part of it, not the master of it. [Fair play] …Within it lies an ability to produce innovations and to adapt and evolve. In the architecture of complex self-adaptive systems lie clues to the design of organizations in which the constituents work together to create a whole from which they all benefit...

An idea that will change the world for the better for everyone is a new architecture of organization learned from nature and other complex self-adaptive systems. With this architecture, we will get better governance and more co-operation across boundaries. Working together, many organizations may improve the condition of India's children. And, working together, humanity may accelerate its progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, and even mitigate climate change.”

[I’ve had enough. Two things –

1. Yes, self-adapting systems are cool. Not futuristic, really, but cool. And have room to be deployed more.
2. But the idea that cooperation is superior form of organization is pure ideological hogwash.
   

So far, human progress was driven by equal doses via cooperation and competition, with both being driven not by benevolence, but by self-interest. One can even interpret benevolence as a self-interest, with a small and fully legitimate re-interpretation of utility theory. So no, self-adaptive systems won’t do much for India’s children, unless there is a serious fully functional market system that assures a steady progression for India along growth curve. And no, the Millennium Development Goals won’t do much good either, for these goals are really more about taxing the developed countries of the West with a guilt charge to supply subsidies to the existent regimes in the poor parts of the world. The poor are, really, a bit like an actor in a commercial for bottled water. He might be thirsty, but he doesn’t get to drink that water.]


Number 5:

“The tragedy of modern atheism is to have ignored just how many aspects of religion continue to be interesting even when the central tenets of the great faiths are discovered to be entirely implausible. …In the light of this, it seems evident that what we now need is not a choice between atheism and religion--but a new secular religion: A religion for atheists.”

[Irony has it, but the good philosopher who wrote this doesn’t quite get the point that from the logic point of view, atheism is a form of religion – it is faith-based as any religion is, and is dogmatic in its acceptance of the first principle that God does not exist]

“What would such a peculiar idea involve? For a start, lots of new buildings akin to churches, temples and cathedrals. We're the only society in history to have nothing transcendent at our centre, nothing which is greater than ourselves. In so far as we feel awe, we do so in relation to supercomputers, rockets and particle accelerators. The pre-scientific age, whatever its deficiencies, at least offered its denizens the peace of mind that follows from knowing all man-made achievements to be inconsequent next to the spectacle of the universe.”

[Spot the contradiction here – if we are the first culture that has nothing transcendent at our core, then we are the culture that does not treat anything as being eternal. Which, of course, means that we cannot de fact believe that any of our achievements can transcend ‘the spectacle of universe’. By the same argument, past cultures, by believing that they left something behind – buildings, temples etc, but always man made – that transcended time had to believe that the ‘spectacle of universe’ was at the very least equaled by their own legacy left for posterity. In other words, the author is clearly logically wrapped up in contradictions here once again.]

“A secular religion would hence begin by putting man into context and would do so through works of art, landscape gardening and architecture. Imagine a network of secular churches, vast high spaces in which to escape from the hubbub of modern society and in which to focus on all that is beyond us.”

[Museums and art galleries as cathedrals? Unquestioned, accepted on faith? Not tested by either time or repetition? Artists as ‘creators’ of a divine license? This is really something closer to the heart of communists and fascists – both have attempted to use art as a vehicle for propagation of the ‘ultimate truth’ – although both have had some artificial (and disastrous in quality) systems of controls over the messengers.]

“In addition, a secular religion would use all the tools of art in order to create an effective kind of propaganda in the name of kindness and virtue. Rather than seeing art as a tool that can shock and surprise us (the two great emotions promoted by most contemporary works), a secular religion would return to an earlier view that art should improve us. It should be a form of propaganda for a better, nobler life.”

[Goebels would approve… as would Stalin. But would modern artists, operating on the basis of personal freedom of expression – which includes freedom to shock, to surprise, to… well, to ‘not be a part of any propaganda’ – approve? I doubt it.]

[At this point, I must say the idea of a secular religion – as espoused by the author here – just doesn’t appeal to me. It is a prescription for totalitarian control, with the ideology of a master race being replaced in its ‘posters’ by the ideology of ‘better and nobler life’… One wonders if there ever was a totalitarian regime, internecine and all that ever postulated its objectives of not achieving a ‘better and nobler life’? The road to Hell is always paved with good intentions... and, may I add, often well-decorated with art...]

Economics 19/06/2010: Ideas that (allegedly) will change the world 1

Forbes Magazine has published a list of 25 ideas that will change the world in the 21^st century. The list is available here. Let's take a look. Some are quite interesting, others are banal...

I’ll be blogging about it over the next few days.

Number 1.
"In coming years, increasingly larger amounts of capital will come into the financial system. ...India, China and a few other developing economies will attract a much larger portion of foreign savings. …This increased flow of capital presents us with a unique opportunity to transform [Indian] society. …the financing, investment and risk management needs of companies and governments are growing in size and complexity, and financial institutions should have the ability to support this growth.”

[So far, nothing new – investment into Brics has been growing steadily and the trend is likely to continue for some time assuming:

1. Massive Government-fuelled credit and spending expansion in China continues
2. Massive Government spending-fuelled expansion in Brazil continues (for the record – Brazil’s fiscal deficit is reaching beyond 13% per annum at the time of rapid economic growth – if one ever had a more pro-cyclical fiscal policy than that and didn’t end up in ditch afterward, do let me know)
3. India can supply significant translation of internal growth into external and expatriable revenue for companies without either running a massive inflation or grinding to a halt on the back of collapsed exports demand
4. Russia returns to robust growth – though in the case of Russia, there is little chance the country does not really attract massive external funding outside extraction industries.

But the thing about these countries swallowing a greater share of Western savings is probably true, for some time. Not sure if it will last through the 21^st century]

“Technology will play an important part in this transformation, because it has the ability to break access barriers and bring down transaction costs to a fraction of what they are today. …One such transformational change will come from mobile payment systems.” [An interesting, but not very ‘futuristic’ view – the view that few would disagree with]

“Technology will enable Mutual Funds to sell and service much smaller investment units and insurance companies to sell much smaller policies than they are able to do now. [Alas, mutual funds industry is hardly a cutting edge stuff. Especially since ETFs offer much more at much lower costs. And they do not need any new technology to offer their services to smaller investors] …Similarly, processing small loans and small insurance claims will become faster and easier... Databases with credit histories, and Unique Identification systems will allow financial institutions to reduce risk when they make loans or provide other financial services.” [I am not sure that risk management is a matter of technology bottlenecks. While computational and data processing power can help, it can’t alleviate the problems of modelling and pricing risk, or the problems relating to catastrophic risks, or the much more salient – from Bric’s perspective – problem of basic individual risks inherent in the client base. Machines might change the modes of analysis, but they can’t change the default probabilities of people.]

“The impact of technology is not limited to retail financial services alone. At the core of the financial system where equity, credit, currency and other risks are traded, we need deep, liquid and resilient markets. Technology is helping these markets enormously, and playing an important role in improving efficiency of capital allocation and risk management.” [Yes, but… the speed of order systems in world’s leading exchanges is now so much faster than the speed at which information is delivered to the public and even recorded, that we have clearing and disclosure systems operating at slower speeds than booking systems. It is a serious concern]

[I am not really convinced the idea of India’s and emerging markets financial revolution is… well… all together so revolutionary. Looks like a simple linear projection of a trend.]



Number 2: the emergence of non-English language based cultures on the web.

“…culture does get transmitted; the early adopters, eagerly working on the [African languages] Internet, say, will also be speaking English or French, and they will transmit best practices. It won't take as long as it did the first time. …You already have the 3G mobile network so basically you just need a device to connect. The questions are what devices they will use to connect and when those devices will become affordable. Like with telephony, where people who have never had a landline leap straight to mobile phones, we will see people who have never had an Internet connection leap straight to broadband.”

[An interesting point, but again, hardly revolutionary. In fact, most of hardware referred to above is clearly already in place or being put into action. Its price is collapsing rapidly, including in emerging economies. African consumers of mobile data are pretty much identical in their patterns of consumption to those in the West or Asia. The question is about ‘software’ of culture, of language. A person, say in Africa, can opt for the use of a local language and local culture, drawing on few thousands in terms of potential market for their ideas and content. Or the same person can opt for English or French or Spanish or Chinese. Foreign language merging with foreign culture will not only open the culture up to a larger scale market, but it will also lead to more interesting interaction between language and culture, potentially leading to a development of (at first) non-convergent sub-cultures that will inhabit the web alone and will have only loose (or even superficial) connections to the original culture itself and to the language-based system they utilise on the web. Now, that’s a revolutionary idea – not a transformation of existent cultures, but their mutation into new cultures. The next question is – following convergence of communications, will there be a convergence of atomistic new web-based cultures? Will the web lead to the emergence of a truly global, non-localized culture? And here is another ‘futuristic’ idea for you that comes off the same core – once convergence of technologies and communications takes place, the next step will be to merge these with biological systems. Then, new cultures – until then existent solely in the virtual world – will become physical – or biological. What happens next? Imagine your children’s computer games acted out in real physical universe? May be not by 2030… but what about by 2050?]


Number 3:

“There is a strange paradox at the heart of human nature. We humans are the most sociable creatures on earth, with a remarkable ability to cooperate with one another. … Human beings are also creatures of unparalleled ferocity. No other animal is capable of the horrors--the wars, genocides, torture and oppression--that we have regularly visited upon our fellow human beings. This is all the more perplexing because killing does not come easily to us. …What goes on in the human mind to make… brutality possible? We dehumanize our fellow human beings when we convince ourselves …that they are less than human... The immense destructive power of dehumanization lies in the fact that it excludes its victims from the universe of moral obligation, so killing them is of no greater consequence swatting a mosquito, or poisoning a rat. If dehumanization is a key factor in war and genocide, we ought to be working very hard to prevent it.”

[This is more like a real 21st century challenge, although the humanitarian dream has been with us for a very, very long time. One interesting aspect of the entire idea of finding a ‘cure’ for cruelty and inhumanity is that all, even theoretical, ones seem to lead to a mind control and totalitarian suppression of thought in general. And the article on the topic linked above leaves absolutely no clues as to how we can resolve the truly horrific problem of dehumanization without actually dehumanizing ourselves in the process.]