Evolutionary Economics (CIRA)

I am going to start this thread by basically saying that I am not a believer in "Perfect Economic Paradigms". I do not think there exists a single all encompassing perfect economic theory or only one that answers all our needs.

As a pragmatist I have come to appreciate the freedom of small market Capitalism but do not confuse this with Modern Industrial Capitalism and I think Adam Smith is long past needing to be rewritten in this respect.

By the same token I can appreciate the mechanics of Social Capitalism and I think it is absurd to imagine all collective necessity being met by individual interest alone. Not to mention the idea that everything is solved through application or imposition of a fairness doctrine for a competitive market ethics. Get over the libertarian ideal that individual motive says it all, even when out of the mouths of thirty million Frenchmen.

Wasn't that the expression "Thirty Million Frenchmen can't be wrong" ?

Well the Maginot Line argues the fallacy of collective individual doctrine and the effectiveness of a "popular strategy" developed by consensus.

On the historical page linked above there is this quote:

"If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy to seek a solution elsewhere."
CLAUSEWITZ

But I want this thread to be about economic theory as it isn't yet understood in respect to evolutionary adaptation and an alternative to simplistic and violent competition. An alternative that still doesn't live up to its potential as understood from the perspective of Human Selection and Evolution.

So to illustrate a simple market dynamic at work I will introduce this article from the BBC today about an undiscovered commodity and a solution to the dilemma posed by the piece.


Saudis 'fear sand shortage'
Wednesday, 5 November, 2003, 14:03 GMT

Saudi Arabia has reportedly imposed strict border checks to enforce a ban on the export of sand.
There are fears that the growing demands of the construction industry could lead to a shortage in the desert kingdom.

The Arab News newspaper reports that neighbouring Bahrain needs to import large quantities of sand for reclaiming land from the sea.

Demand is also expected to grow as the process of reconstruction in Iraq gathers pace.

Although sand remains plentiful in Saudi Arabia, construction experts say the high costs of bagging and transporting make exploiting it difficult.

Experts have told the newspaper that if a mechanism could be devised to move sand from the vast desert region known as the Empty Quarter, it could be a very profitable proposition.

As the paper points out, there is more sand in the kingdom than oil.

Cement is also in high demand, the report says, with many cement factories having to expand their production capabilities to meet domestic demand.

***************************

Now here is the trick and the treat for all you post Halloween revelers. This reflects shade's of Herbert's Dune & Stanley's colorful Mar's series. You see the problem is simple to solve but the result is the destruction of the environment they want to save and confrontation with the contradiction of desires for humans that wish to make a garden our of the dessert to fulfill the long held prophetic desire.

The solution contains an element of be careful what you wish for as it may come true.

Solving their dilemma for transporting sand is simple, so simple I am amazed they haven't seen the obvious, pipe it.

You see sand "slurries" even as a solid and it can be shipped to the sea ports of Bahrain faster & cheaper this way than in rail cars and trucks by simply creating a pipeline system out of recycled old oil pipelines. Another question remains however; can they barter the sand for icebergs?

While I have little doubt this approach will wear out the equipment relatively quickly, it will also ship massive quantities before it does and can be done relatively cheaply utilizing what is currently waste energy from petroleum production in the region as burnt off natural gas.

So here is evidence of supply and demand altering the global environment one profound local region at a time but collectively simultaneously.

So when do you all start coming to grips with how evolution is being redefined in terms that show that "HUMAN DEMAND" defines "Natural Supply"[?]

Human demand has altered irrevocably the very principle of natural competition and redefined SELECTION in specifically and exclusively terms of human choices. This is why I insist Darwin must be revisited to understand the need for a new environmental economic theory and an understanding of the importance of Human Selection as it has already come to dominate life on Earth.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 07 November 2003 - 04:19 AM.

About "piping" sand in pipe lines you write :

While I have little doubt this approach will wear out the equipment relatively quickly, it will also ship massive quantities before it does and can be done relatively cheaply utilizing what is currently waste energy from petroleum production in the region as burnt off natural gas.

I'm not so sure about that. Sand really does a great job of grinding metal, even at low speeds. Piping sand would probably involve turning it into mud so it can be pumped at a good speed without too much pressure and grinding, but I know from personnal experience that sand in pumps is a sure recipe for rapid breakdown.

Anyway, back to the topic :

My thought is that economics are only necessary in environments with limited ressources. Basically, any closed system, Earth for instance.

Another thought of mine is that we'll have solved our ressource limitation long before we can devise an ideal economic model (assuming that's even possible).

So it might be more productive to concentrate on expanding the universe we can gather ressources from, than trying to find the best way to share limited ressources.

It's probably far off, but I like to think of a future when we can turn (solar) energy into particles of matter and arrange them in any atom, molecule or object we need. Perhaps nanotechnology will help achieve that.

When that future happens, then the only limited ressources left will be that of the mind. Art, knowledge, science, these you can never "mine" (unless you build AI farms ?) and they will be the base of future economy.

An economy where thought is money, and technologies like the internet allow us to share our wealth. Call it "mind socialism" if you will.

Jean

Slurrying the matrix with sea water is simple but counterintuitive because what sand doesn't destroy salt quickly does but actually the idea of moving large amounts of slurried solids is currently being applied to moderate distance coal transport.

I agree on the limitations and I do not expect miracles from mechanics but I also know there is a wealth of discarded pipeline material out there already and it is nearly free for the taking.

Also a lot of the loading will be dependent on the balance of mass, velocity, and frictional components. Yes this method will wear out equipment. What usage doesn't?

"Bottom line," it is a question of cost.

Soon enough I hope as nanotech and off-world development makes new cerametals possible we may create new alloyed materials that won't wear out but then again maybe we can define geno-nanotech fusions of such species as "coral" that can be fed raw materials on land and build entire buildings around cerametal matrices miles high by preprogrammed genetic instruction on their own.

Not to mention replacing glass with energy absorption fields that convert impacting sunlight into energy for operations and are selectably transparent/shaded to visible light, built on nanometer thick films of material, controllable to allow gradient temperature maintenance for interior environments by thermal conductivity (molecular heat pumping) in either direction based on interior demand.

But then what do we do with the construction workers?

I know we turn them all into trim carpenter, finishers, and raw material feeders Let them be artists and life support workers. )

You've got nice ideas there... about the windows you could actually made transparent solar panels (but they'd produce very little power, with currently available opto-electro-chemistry). Using a plain liquid cristal layer they could also act as shutters. As for thermal regulation, it's a bit more tough, but the Peltier effect could come in handy I suppose.

Something I haven't looked into yet is if you can obtain Peltier and/or Siebeck effects using electroactive polymers instead of semiconductors (we can already do polymer transistors, after all).

If such was the case, an all-in-one solar panel / shutter / thermal regulation window material could be made easily and at a very low cost. That's probably worth trying !

Jean

Something I haven't looked into yet is if you can obtain Peltier and/or Siebeck effects using electroactive polymers instead of semiconductors (we can already do polymer transistors, after all).

Finally someone that appreciates elegant integration of design. I am polytheistic about design similar to how I understand the "Spirit of Material".

Actually there is aleady a group ahead of you *like you never saw that coming ) *

Now where is that link, I know I placed it somewhere around here? [!]

Here is a link from Wired that refers to one of the relevant processes.
Through the Solar Looking Glass

BTW, you are getting it and the level of integration is solid state by comparison to what these pioneers of a good prototype for proof of concept are now developing.

I propose a material with molecules as MEMs built along a crystalline lattice structure that can do this ever more elegantly and with no apparent movable parts but simply by creating a liquid crystal that aligns photo-tropically but discharges dielectrically along a fluid circuit matrix.

The circuit is the MEM, the current holds it together coherently the way display screen tech works now.

The trick is to bond the liquid crystal into a molecular scale adhesion to eliminate the need for layering films for retaining the liquid crystal material and the photo-reactive chemical composition of the liquid crystal is also an area in need of work but it is essentially derivative of what we are learning now. This approach meets the demand for efficiency by combining improved efficacy per square foot of impact area, but also makes the product cheap and efficient for not only retrofitting onto older building but can makes it the material of choice for new construction as competitively inexpensive as Low E glass and chambered tech is now.

I suspect that with the right combination of materials and the correct precision of controllable imaged circuitry and balanced current the window could be polarized into a resistant coherent energy field capable of stopping a bullet and weighing what a thin film of plastic does now. Easily able to absorb a snoop laser, ambient REMs or or even a projection energy beam weapon by either photo/electron conversion or producing a reactive surface plasma.

Well so far I only know that ST Microelectronics has openned a research center in Italy to develop a new solar panel technology that would be "like photosynthesis" and also 20 times cheaper than silicon-based panels. Polymers have been mentionned, and nanotechnology will almost certainly be involved, if only in surface processing.

I also believe in elegant integration of design. When one technology can do more than one thing, why not have it do all that it can ?

For instance, FPGA's like those from Xilinx (www.xilinx.com) can be used to implement any computer chip you care to name... and can change function within a second.

Too bad almost nobody uses them... but then again learning VHDL is too much for most people.

Lazarus, if you're interesting in other ideas I have that you could call elegant integration of design, check my thread on full-body prosthetics in the Mind and Body Augmentation section. I believe polymers, with their countless applications, could be "the flesh of tomorrow".

Jean

Biomimetic metal materials fascinate me and I have a suit design that can use some which are already functional and available. It is sad that their cost is still thousands of dollars per square meter but even at that I have a design for one flight suit that can be produced at a competitive level with small planes now and would provide human augmented flight under VFR conditions through Solar synergetic power at speeds that can easily exceed ground based autombiles and use zero fossil or combustable fuels.

I want to make the combustion fuel based ground vehical know the fate of the horse it replaced. Evolutionary extinction by design.

So what about the Industries, the jobs, the moguls and people that depend on this technology the way theocracy lives off the blood of human sacrifice?

I should really like to know about the material(s) used in your flight suit !

I'm also seeking the end of the internal-combustion engine. Solutions have been available for decades but the oil moguls just won't allow them to see the light of the day.

(Hey, do you know the best solar panels in the world are manufactured by British Petroleum ? Says a lot, don't you think ?)

I've always been more interested in using electricity, because it's so much more efficient than combustion (let alone cleaner). I've even researched a technique for transforming current aircraft reactors into electric turbines with no loss in power. It's doable, if people would just want to. It could even make "space-planes" possible.

Industry moguls would have you believe there is only one way to do things : their way. That why I appreciate you guys : you think "outside the box", as they say (clearly indicating the thoughts of most people are limited and imprisonned.)

Jean

DARPA's has been grabbing it all up. No surprise there.

http://www.iop.org/E.../001/sm86r1.pdf
M Shahinpoor is the creator of the material that I am specifically niterested in

Artificial Muscle Research Institute: Paper: Ionic Polymer-Metal ...
http://www.unm.edu/~amri/paper.html

http://www.unm.edu/~amri/

http://www.ais.fraun...pers/SIRS01.pdf

http://www.eps.org/a.../abs/S5720.html

http://www.iwri.unis...nanosprings.htm

http://www.scienceye...metic_info.html

http://ai-lab.cs.uu....ticRobotics.pdf

I registered with the AMRI a long time ago... but I guess that shouldn't surprise you given my interest in robotics

Bar-Cohen is doing a fantastic job, there.

Thanks for the links, lot of stuff to explore ! (if only I could use parallel brains and multiprocess all the stuff I have to read !)

Jean

By the same token I can appreciate the mechanics of Social Capitalism and I think it is absurd to imagine all collective necessity being met by individual interest alone.

That's a pretty bold statement for a self-proclaimed anarchist.

That's a pretty bold statement for a self-proclaimed anarchist.

"Social Anarchist" and you need to reread Le Guin.

Look carefully past your labels and find my quotes and you will see I am consistent on this. Anyway who but a Social Anarchist could adopt aspects of all the various oppositing.forces What I have never claimed was to be politically correct or an apparatchick.

Lazarus Long
I am going to start this thread by basically saying that I am not a believer in "Perfect Economic Paradigms".  I do not think there exists a single all encompassing perfect economic theory or only one that answers all our needs.

Quite right, Lazarus. There is no 'perfect economic paradigm' to speak of. However, there is some very good theory and schools of thought within economics. There is often a lot of debate about various schools of thought.

As a pragmatist I have come to appreciate the freedom of small market Capitalism but do not confuse this with Modern Industrial Capitalism and I think Adam Smith is long past needing to be rewritten in this respect.

Don't you mean 'free market capitalism'?

In any case, Adam Smith is still relevant today. Most of modern economics is built on Adam Smith. The Chicago School (who spawned Friedman, Becker, Posner, etc) is basically the intellectual progeny of Smith. Smith advocated a small government, free market capitalism with the only role of the Government being the construction of public works, maintaining the judiciary and enforcement roles as well as the military. According to Smith, these areas were extremely prone to market failure and could not be sustainable in a free market. Everything else, even currency, could be privately owned.

By the same token I can appreciate the mechanics of Social Capitalism and I think it is absurd to imagine all collective necessity being met by individual interest alone.  Not to mention the idea that everything is solved through application or imposition of a fairness doctrine for a competitive market ethics.  Get over the idea libertarian ideal that individual motive says it all, even when out of the mouths of thirty million Frenchmen.

Social Capitalism is, I believe, a euphemism for government intervention. When you define what a 'collecitve necessity' is, you have to make a subjective judgement based on overall 'welfare' or level of total happiness. It is not so simple as that - and it's much easier if I had an example, but every individual is like their own information processor. The individual is the best judge of his/her circumstances and how to adapt to those circumstances. Collectivism distorts this by sacrificing individual interests to a collective 'good'.

'Thirty million Frenchmen'? Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. [lol] Rousseau used the axiom of liberty, fraternity and (forget the third one) on the social contract and mode of ethics. However this may have lead to France's current socialist arena.

Wasn't that the expression "Thirty Million Frenchmen can't be wrong" ?

How about sixty million frenchmen?

Ok now I see your point this is like Japan in the 1980's - we could discuss it's merits but that would take a lot of time and research.

Well the Maginot Line agues the fallacy of collective individual  doctrine and the effectiveness of a "popular strategy" developed by consensus.

On the historical page linked above there is this quote:

QUOTE
"If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy to seek a solution elsewhere."
CLAUSEWITZ

Are you discussing the 'invisible hand' philosophy of Adam Smith? (ie. individual interest adds up to the greatest good) Perhaps you can explain the link to this phrase so I can understand where you're coming from.

But I want this thread to be about economic theory as it isn't yet understood in respect to evolutionary adaptation and an alternative to simplistic and violent competition.  An alternative that still doesn't live up to its potential as understood from the perspective of Human Selection and Evolution.

The capitalist notion of competition between entities working within a market is not inherently violent or 'dog eat dog'. Market forces can work with each other, or against each other - but each foster a kind of cooperation with consumers to provide the best deal and the highest quality product.

So to illustrate a simple market dynamic at work I will introduce this article from the BBC today about an undiscovered commodity and a solution to the dilemma posed by the piece.

This is a 'tradegy of the commons' problem. My question is, who owns this land? If it is collectively owned, then who has the stake in the sand. If the beaches were privately owned, then it would be the prerogative of the landowner to either sell the sand or to keep the sand and continue his/her business there (beaches are marketable after all). Otherwise what is the price of the sand or is it just 'free for all'. In this case we have a demand for it - and supply could be determined by the negotiated price. If it is a deserted beach and no benefit is derived from it, then the problem is mute. But then again costs and benefits have to be considered - and a specific landowner can be the better judge, for him/her and for the reputation of his/her enterprise. Collective assessments may not take into account these considerations.

Human demand has altered irrevocably the very principle of natural competition and redefined SELECTION in specifically and exclusively terms of human choices. This is why I insist Darwin must be revisited to understand the need for a new environmental economic theory and an understanding of the importance of Human Selection as it has already come to dominate life on Earth.

The libertarian answer to the tradegy of the commons problems is, as I stated it - private ownership of resources.

The 'survival of the fittest' mantra is in fact an effective incentive to bring forth individual motivation to build a world where effort is rewarded and sloth is punished.

Social Capitalism is, I believe, a euphemism for government intervention. When you define what a 'collecitve necessity' is, you have to make a subjective judgement based on overall 'welfare' or level of total happiness. It is not so simple as that - and it's much easier if I had an example, but every individual is like their own information processor. The individual is the best judge of his/her circumstances and how to adapt to those circumstances. Collectivism distorts this by sacrificing individual interests to a collective 'good'.

I couldn't agree with you more Nyder. Any time socialism is interjected into the market it means someone has to define a problem and FORCE a solution. It is usually leaders needing justify their power position that "dream up" problems that need to be fixed by government. It always invovles force, not choice. Always.

About the "30 million frenchmen" thing : it's OK not to say 60, 'cuz whatever you wanna discuss in France, you'll always find someone to agree and someone to disagree. That's how we are : bicker and fight even when it's not worth it. [lol]

Jean

I've seen a few french movies and I like the French take on life. They seem to be more emotional and interpersonal (such as that kissing greeting they do). They also seem to have a greater zest for life. I'm over-generalising, sorry..

I owe you a more lengthy response to the thoughtful addition you have added to this topic and I promise I will but in the meantime here is a link to a parallel thread that addresses the same issue.

Crazy Social Capitalist Thoughts

Please feel free to quote from there and carry over text to this thread for discussion. I would also encourage a cross referencing of the threads on:

Logical proof of Libertarianism

Economics of the near-future

Economist: God, man and growth

Socialists Vs. Capitalists

Immigration & Social Security

Materialism... Are You Happy?

Spontanious Order Vs. Government Planning

Is super-wealth self-defeating?

Is Humanism winning the social argument?

Overpopulation?

Debunking the 'overpopulation' argument

Is our civilization in danger?

Approaching the Olduvai Cliff?

There are actually already a few more relevant threads to this discussion and i would be grateful to any contributions to this list for review before going too far forward.

I've seen a few french movies and I like the French take on life.  They seem to be more emotional and interpersonal (such as that kissing greeting they do).  They also seem to have a greater zest for life.  I'm over-generalising, sorry..

Man are you wrong ! It might have been so, once, but since I was born (1976) it's an entirely different thing. Besides, we also bicker about the kissing greeting issue. Let me make you laugh :

According to your region, you'll either kiss twice, thrice or four times. How stupid is that ? You can even tell roughly from where people are by the number of kisses they give you. What's even funnier is when the people you're greeting don't kiss the same number of times as you : there's this slightly uncomfortable moment where one of you goes for another kiss and the other stops in the middle. It's always the start for a discussion of who's right and how many times should people kiss. That, my friend, tells you a lot about France.

And it's true, we have over 300 sorts of cheese over here. And every region will swear only by its own traditionnal cheese.

When a french politic party breaks up, it's always to form more parties with only slight differences to their programs. To the point people don't even know why they should choose any. This has an advantage however : you can always precisely choose were you want to be between right-wing and left-wing. But then, with so many parties, don't expect yours to have any real power.

As for the zest of life ? Iraqis have more zest of life than us. I just read the statistics : 60 million french, 17 million of which are single (including me). We don't like each other much, and we certainly have a big tendency to like only ourselves. In case you hadn't noticed

But this is a great country anyway. It's full of stupid people but that's no different from the rest of the world, I'd say. At least we didn't burn as many people as the spanish during the Inquisition. And we haven't yet nuked anything but the fishes of the Pacific Ocean. There's room for improvement [lol]

Jean

According to your region, you'll either kiss twice, thrice or four times. How stupid is that ? You can even tell roughly from where people are by the number of kisses they give you. What's even funnier is when the people you're greeting don't kiss the same number of times as you : there's this slightly uncomfortable moment where one of you goes for another kiss and the other stops in the middle. It's always the start for a discussion of who's right and how many times should people kiss. That, my friend, tells you a lot about France.

And it's true, we have over 300 sorts of cheese over here. And every region will swear only by its own traditionnal cheese.

Yeah I think that would be a little awkward for me having to kiss someone every time you see them! [lol] Hey, do the guys have to kiss too?

When a french politic party breaks up, it's always to form more parties with only slight differences to their programs. To the point people don't even know why they should choose any. This has an advantage however : you can always precisely choose were you want to be between right-wing and left-wing. But then, with so many parties, don't expect yours to have any real power.

Have you heard of Sabine Herold? She is a 22 year old student leading a French libertarian movement. I read that France has a lot of problems with the political power of the unions. Anyway here is a picture of her I found:

http://www.gunboards...4821_sabine.jpg

As for the zest of life ? Iraqis have more zest of life than us. I just read the statistics : 60 million french, 17 million of which are single (including me). We don't like each other much, and we certainly have a big tendency to like only ourselves. In case you hadn't noticed

I guess I mistakenly thought that if French people keep kissing eachother all the time they must like eachother. My mistake.

But this is a great country anyway. It's full of stupid people but that's no different from the rest of the world, I'd say. At least we didn't burn as many people as the spanish during the Inquisition. And we haven't yet nuked anything but the fishes of the Pacific Ocean. There's room for improvement [lol]

I remember at my high school there was a student walkout in protest about that (the french nuclear testing). The French weren't popular in those days! [lol]

About the kissing, I should make it clear it's actually cheek-to-cheek (not a real kiss at all, for most people). Depending on the region (again) two men will either shake hands or kiss. Some do both (at once).

This has nothing to do with liking / loving people. When you're french and in love, you go for the aptly-named french-kiss (if that's really a french invention, that's probably the only one the entire world has taken on).

The nuclear experiments in the pacific... that's something I'm a bit partial about. See, my dad was in the french Navy at the time, patroling the test area. He wedded my mom somewhere in the Tuamotu archipel and I was conceived not too far from Mururoa. Some even say that would explain a lot of my perceived weirdness, but I ain't no Godzilla (except may for the tail part... )

I don't see what's so bad about tightly-controled experiments. American bomb tests never were as strictly regulated as ours. I much more fear some dumb-ass engineers from the DoE launching nuclear-powered space probes that blow-up at launch, contaminating the Earth atmosphere with a massive dose of plutonium (anyone remember SNAP-9A ?)

But I'm probably partial...

Jean

Agent Nyder,

If I were only 22 again. Beauty and brains.........probably the best thing that came out of France since Bridget Bardot