Starting from where we are

Those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it is a wise adage. Studying history can lead to regret, remorse and resentment, through bewilderment, to amazement, as we see the dreadful things we (political units) have done to each other but also the amazing things we (sceintists and artist of all kinds) have achieved.

It is vital to remember, especially when looking at negative events in history, that we can only move on from where we are now. This thought was provoked in me by  a more controversial subject - crime and punishment. An offender has done what s/he has done, and blame can achieve nothing, only learning from what has happened can help us. In its broadest sense, history simply means everything that has happened. It cannot be changed.

All individuals' actions are informed by events that have impinged on them up until the point of the action. Right the way from conception, when the individual inherited parental genes, through every event and thought up until the action in question. This applies just as much to those who have done marvellous, positive things, as to those who have done something awful.

Punishing those who have done something wrong adds to the catalogue of events that shape their future decisions. Whist we may be tempted as a society to pay back bad actions with other bad actions, we really have to swalow the idea that making constructive things happen to people will (or is more likely to) make their later actions constructive. If you could punish your washing machine for breaking down, would you do so? No - when it breaks you fix it.

The myth of sustainability

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIP0O1NJVZA

Don't be fooled by the title. Dr Guy McPherson is no climate change sceptic, or anything similar. I don't really understand why he chose this title, but it seems he prefers the term 'durability'.


In this hard-hitting lecture you will hear a lot of important information and ideas. Mcpherson's remedy against the impending doom is to resort to permaculture.

If you can find just under an hour and a half to hear what he says, I think you will agree it's worth listening to, and that you'll hope he's wrong.

If I ruled the world ...

This intended-to-be-thought-provoking question was rattling around in my head when I came across a productivity article that I had filed away for future reference. It begins like this, except that I replaced the word "goals" in point 6.

"Six simple questions that make you more productive

1. What is the most valuable use of my time right now?
2. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish?
3. What am I giving up to do this?
4. What are my three most important projects or tasks today?
5. Am I being productive or just busy?
6. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?"


It stikes me as a good thought experiment to consider how one would rule the world, but I think the set of questions can be reduced to 3:

1. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish?
2. What are my three most important projects or tasks today?
3. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?"

Let's examine and perhaps adapt these more closely to the thought experiment.

1. What am I ultimately trying to accomplish? That's good. The answer "rule the world" won't do. I would suggest somehing with a phyiscal referent, or in classic productivity terms a "SMART" target.

2. What are my three most important projects or tasks today? This could be a rather distracting question on day one of your new job as ruler of the world. The best can be the enemy of the good, and I would suggest you do not delay too much while you prioritise. There's some urgent stuff that you need to get on with.

3. Is what I'm doing right now moving me measurably closer to what I am ultimately trying to accomplish?" Well if you're ruler of the world it better be, else there will be moves to displace you. Question 3 might be a variation of question 2; today is the same as right now (more or less) and "important" might be defined as causing a measurable movement towards your goals.

So having decided what your goals are, you are faced with hitting the ground running and getting some quick wins, vs more strategic work like planning, and getting structures in place to help you achieve your goals, freeing up your time.

So question 1) is good. Maybe question (2) should be about quick wins. Not so much focus on the most important things, more on what you could do today

Owning stuff

One of the key ideas in a resource based economy, shared with Natural Capitalism, is access to the service provided by a product, rather than ownership of the product. The obvious example is public transport, but the idea is spreading.

Spending some time recently de-cluttering has made me think about the value of things. In one or two cases I have mad a few £ selling something on e-bay. These £ do not have any value until I redeeem them on some other good or service, and they disguise the true value of the item, which is of course in its use.

Some of the decluttering has been of a shed. It is so ingrained in us that the value of something is in its physical presence in our home (or shed) that many of us have got stuff there which we never use and perhaps will never use, but it is ours and we keep it, because we somehow believe the value of it accrues to us because we possess it. If anything though, it is of negative value. It possibly takes up precious space, and it nags at our conscience, especially if we've paid £ for it and never got value for that £. We wasted the money, we tell ourselves.

But what if we give these items away to someone who will make use of them. Immediately the value of them - which is their use, not how much the cost in £, is released. OK their value doesn't directly accrue to us, but it can't, so why waste it even more by stowing it away? Let someone else have it if they'll use it. Not only does this stop waste, but you'll probably feel good by helping someone.

Libertarianism vs an RBE

http://managainstthestate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/2nd-post-to-ben-mcleish.html

Ben McLeish of the Zeitgeist Movement and Graham Wright, author of the above blog, are having an interesting debate on the merits (or not) of an RBE cf the libertarian Austrian Economics model.

There are surprising points of agreement, which make me wonder whether AE isn't closer to an RBE than the current economic system.

But I have lighted on Wright's response to a comment on his blog, here separtaed into individual points with my thoughts:

•  "Economics is the study of the logical consequences of human action". Maybe. As many know, economics is more literally something like household management, and I prefer that as a definition or starting point.
  
• "Political philosophy is about devising a set of principles for ownership (i.e. who has ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over which resources)". In an RBE there is no need for ownership, only access. As to decision-making, decisions would be arrived at by applying the scientific method.
• "economics can teach what consequences we can expect from different ownership principles being used in societies". Maybe it can, but in an RBE we are not interested in "ownership models".
• " Economics is the body of knowledge that can tell us whether resources will be used more efficiently for satisfying human desire [in one or another system]". In economics the word 'want' covers what would commonly be distinguished as 'need' and if 'desire' is used in the same sense as 'want' it has the same problem as far as I am concerned.

What is the overarching aim of a system for operating planet earth (which is what economics should be about)? Ownership isn't a first principle. You own something so that you can exclusive and unlimited access it - thus access underlies ownership and it is what an RBE seeks to optimise.

Somewhere in their discussion, McLeish differentiates 'good' growth from 'bad' growth and Wright asks him to explain/clarify. I don't know if he has done so, but Robert Kennedy's critique of GDP/GNP will serve (see http://www2.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/michael.brandl/main%20page%20items/Kennedy%20on%20GNP.htm):

"Our gross national product ... counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. .... Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

So, we are looking for growth in the good things Kennedy lists here. I'm sure that's a close enough description of 'good growth' for McLeish.

As appealing as quality of life and/or happiness are as indicators, they are tricky to enumerate. If you are healthy and happy you will presumably live longer. Maybe life length is a good enough proxy for 'good growth'. That said, if people live longer there will be more of us on the planet. Maybe populatiin is the simplest proxy for good growth? Obviously, there is a limit to how many people the planet can sustain. If our resource efficiency is optimal, we will be sustaining as much population as those resources can allow.

The lights in the tunnel

I have read Martin Ford's book with considerable interest. His main thesis is that technological unemployment will pervade and that we should plan for it.

Where I must part company with him is in his view that consumption and capitalism are sine qua non. He rejects Marx's idea of a planned economy (and I'm not here to defend it) yet at the same time posits an economy where the government arranges for the consumer to have the money he needs to keep consumption going by taxing consumption(!) and levying business taxes. This is also a planned economy.

He accepts that the planet has finite resources, but predicts that nano-technology will radically increase what we can do with available materials. I have no reason (or knowledge) to doubt or question his prediction about nano-technology, but he cannot brush away the finiteness of resources by saying we can exploit them more effectively/efficiently

He is silent on the subject of advertising, which is a key driving force in a consumption based economy. He wants to incentivise people to improve themselves and society by offering what amounts to wages for doing these things. I don't disagree with financial incentives being used to create social / environmental benefits, but presumably Ford's system will have to incentivise people to consume goods and services - that is basically advertising/marketing. As he foresees a world in which most work is done by machines, I assume that advertising will be similarly cybernated.

But in missing out advertising as a subject area, Ford has overlooked a huge gap in his thought process. We can find it by consiering what modern advertising does. It seelks to persuade you that such and such a product will make you a better, more attractive, essentially happier, healthier person. Paradoxically, advertising knows what Ford has omitted. Our true motivation is to be happy and healthy. Advertising couples that motivation to consumption to keep the economy going, because our economic system is basically one of consumption. Ford sees this, but does not challenge it - in fact it is his start point, even though he accepts that the free market is an intellectual construct. It has no physical referent.

It is the supreme and truly immutable fact that we have finite resources to work with. That, combined with the urge of humans, like any species, to survive and thrive, produces the essential train of thought of a Resource Based Economy, in which we apply the scientific method and technology to bear on the issue of how we as a species can survive and thrive on 'spaceship earth'.

It is a pity, because Ford goes so far towards deriving an RBE by his own sound reasoning, yet stops short because of assumptions about money and the "invisible hand" idea of Adam Smith which leaves the latter's ideas exposed to the criticism of being more systematic theology than a plan for how humanity can survive and thrive.

Ford has great expectations of what technology can/will achieve, and I'm not disagreeing, but another omission, and a key building block of an RBE, is applying the technology to knowing what useful stuff we have on the planet, how much of it we have, and where it is. Ford scoffs at the idea of knowledge being on the web and not in people's heads:This rather goes against his high view of artificial intelligence, but surely he must accept by his own logic that an inventory of the earth's resources would be the ultimate application for technology, and the starting point of a properly planned - I assume he does not object to all planning - approach to our survival on this planet.

Nationalism

I don't want to take anything away from the athletes/performers in the London 2012 Games. I share in the emotion of the winners and losers and marvel at the skill, strength, speed and acuity of these young men and women.

Am I jealous/envious? Yes, of the youth and suppleness and the fact they have found something to excel at, persevered and excelled. They may well be inspirational role models and I take my hat off to them.

There's a Mitchell and Webb sketch in which the former mocks the latter for identifying with the football (soccer) team he supported as if he were actually a contributor, by use of "we" rather than "they" to reference them.

By comparison with many a football supporter, I suppose those of us who were born, brought up, have lived, or have been naturalised in Britain have a strong case for identifying with Team GB. I don't know about you, however, but my part in any success of the team is entirely negligible. So how can I identify with Team GB as "we"? The only connection I can claim is that I was born in Britain - and that is not my achievement in any sense.

The same goes for any achievement or failure of someone British. Only those who had a direct part can / should take any credit/blame. Of course it is convenient and therefore likely that teams will be formed of people based near to each other, and being born near to each other is going to lead to that propinquity.

Well done Olympians all - fantastic, amazing. Well done Britain? Not especially.