What Happened to the Political System?
As I write this it is very hard to juxtapose those two words — political and system. What we are observing today is, at best, a broken system. It is a moribund system. All organization is in tatters. It is failing miserably to perform its historical function in society, providing a basis for governance and generating policies to achieve governance objectives. And if you think I am merely writing about the political system in the United States you haven't been paying attention to the rest of the world. Politics is a mess everywhere.
This is by no means the first time in history when a political decision system has broken down and taken governance with it. We have seen this phenomenon many times throughout history as great civilizations have collapsed when their systems of governing fell to the machinations of a dysfunctional political process. Societies under stresses, such as resource declines, seem to most often respond first with a breakdown in the political system. That drags down the quality of governance since it is the political process that determines who the actors making the decisions are going to be.
The stresses are invariably first felt in the economic system, as previously noted. But that leads to the stresses felt by political leaders to “do something”. And since, as a general rule those leaders really don't know what to do, or even what the real causes of the stresses are, they do what politicians are best at — they point fingers at the usual suspects, make stuff up and hope no one will realize it. The political game then becomes one of convincing the electorate (or the financial powers) that one story is better than another just to get the job. Even in those rare cases where a political leader (in power or trying to get power) might know a bit about the real causes they are loathe to tell that story. No one wants to hear that the end is near and inevitable. Whoever tells that story won't be elected, or if in power, won't stay long. Remember Jimmy Carter?
The political process as it is playing out in the United States this summer and early fall will be something else to watch. I seriously doubt that there are too many observers of what has been going on so far who do not believe that the system is broken badly. The presidential race is an amplified version of a comedy that is playing out all over the world, at all scales of governance districts. Corrupt, stupid, narcissistic, politicians are playing into the hands of corrupt, stupid, narcissistic capitalists everywhere and in every level of governments. These days even those few earnest and generally honest politicians who got into public service because they really believed they could help the system and people living under it find they have to play the game by the rules that have evolved which are mostly about money, power, and getting re-elected (or not getting assassinated in a coup). In the US this season is further made preposterous by the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision which basically gave corporate powers carte blanche in purchasing the best candidates for representing their interests. Judges are supposed to exercise good judgment. The courts and laws are the backbone of civil society. When the back is broken, nothing else will work properly. What happened with the justices who found in favor of this abomination? What they will have done is simply accelerate the collapse of the political process and the collapse of governance.
How did we come to this? Every nation starts out with big hopes to provide a wonderful home for their citizens. Today many nations have citizen participation (some form of democracy) to allow citizen voices to be heard, at least in principle. Even those countries where democracy is not the form of governance, at least leaders are wary of unrest to the point of trying to maintain stability. Usually, as we've been seeing in the Middle East, that leads to strong arm techniques with violent consequences. But the best intentions of governments and leaders have proven ineffectual in producing working governments that produce livable conditions in their countries. What went wrong?
The United States is actually a very good example of how the political process can fail and destroy what might otherwise have been an effective form of governance. I will take examples of this from what is happening in the presidential race and the workings (or failures to work) of the three branches of government.
First, I would like to dissect the whole notion of the polity a bit and separate the mechanisms (subsystem) of governance from the political subsystem. In the US we have a stark version of these two subsystems working at odds with one another. Originally, the term polity meant to reference both the political process and the governance that resulted. Once upon a time that confluence seemed reasonable. Once when there were clearly socialist governments or democratic governments the business of developing principles for governing from the prevailing ideology was seemingly straightforward. The only differences that had to be worked out in the process of choosing leaders and legislators were the ideas about which policies should be set and how to implement them.
Figure 1. A systems diagram of an idealized political system in the context of the whole social, economic, and governance system. If everything worked in balance, this system should be able to produce a functional governance subsystem that monitors the well being of the social system and applies the governance principles generally shared by all members of the society, e.g., constitutions. The political system provides the selection process by which governance will be guided by the balance of political theories from either liberal (exploratory-empathetic) or conservative (exploitative-self-serving) ideological perspectives (see below for explanation). The governance principles are expected to evolve somewhat over time as society evolves (e.g. with changes in technology). This model does not take into account the limits of non-renewable resources or the ecological impacts of waste production. If the society were in a steady-state condition and at or just below carrying capacity, then the system would be in balance (what I have called a sapient society). Governance principles would have to include monitoring the environment (resource and waste flows relative to the Ecos' capacities) and regulating consumption/population to maintain balance. Humans never really developed a sense of need for such governing principles, and in fact strongly believed they could be ignored, which is a big part of why we find ourselves in a predicament today.
The political process is where society, under the influence of political theories and the influence of political advocates, must decide which persons among them will produce the most viable governance body. In democracies this is worked out, as it would seem to be doing in the US, through an election cycle. Our two-party+independent voters get to hash out what they believe is the best political theory (and political platforms) to follow given their understanding of the conditions of their social system and its relation to other systems in the world. Unfortunately their perceptions of those conditions are now largely controlled by the political parties, especially through a media that has become decidedly political (vs. apolitical). In this incredibly complex world where real knowledge is in short supply, almost everything has turned into a political debate using opinions in place of facts. It is understandable how the politics of economics has come under this influence given the deplorable state of economics as a social science. But even something like global warming due to human consumption and climate change resulting therefrom has become politicized in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence available to inform policy making.
Politics ought to be based on facts interpreted through considered theories (not just ideologies) through deliberation, consultation, dialog, and debate carried out by people of reason in front of a citizenry who can exercise critical thinking (based on a well founded education) and exercise their voices to influence the process. Those we send to govern should be the best and the brightest and able to sort fact from fiction to arrive at good policies.
That is what it ought to be if it were going to work properly. But there is a weak link in this concept and that is human nature. It is especially the case when it comes to the level of sapience had by the average human, let alone that had by those who seek to be governors. Figure 1 represents a mythical system. One most of us want to believe exists, but in fact, is just an idealization that cannot come close given our shortcomings as a species in the realm of developing wisdom. What a pity.
Our politics, instead, arise from two seemingly at-odds needs that arise from our biological mandate that we have not yet evolved the appropriate internal regulations that come from higher sapience. All of life is constantly faced with a trade-off between exploration (e.g. finding some new kind of food) and exploitation (e.g. gobbling up an existing food resource). Exploration entails risks. You might expend a lot of energy trying something new, or looking for something new, and end up with a failed effort. You would have squandered energy (and possibly other resources) as a result. Exploitation looks less risky at first. Consume a known resource; you don't have to waste energy looking for it and you know what the payoff will be.
But animals need to participate in both kinds of activities over time for the simple reason that exploiting resources often leads to depletion effects. If the animal never explored the territory for new resources, then depletion of the known exploitable resource will lead to destruction of the animal. Thus it is incumbent on animals to be somewhat exploratory in order to avoid getting stuck in a resource hole. They need to have options. On the other hand they should not spend too much time and energy exploring where there is still an adequate supply of a resource since this would be a waste of time and energy with no real payback. It is important to recognize that this trade-off dynamic plays out at the individual, population, and species levels of organization. Evolution is a great example of the trade-off between exploration (new mutations and their effect on genotypes) and exploitation (stable phenotypes conserved in stable environments). But, as pointed out, individual organisms have to work with this same dynamic.
Where is the optimum in the exploratory-exploitation spectrum? For many lower species the “sweet spot” is determined evolutionarily, that is for the species through their collective fitness in particular environments. Some creatures, like barnacles, sit themselves down in a suitable location, anchor for life, and spend their entire adult lives staying in the same place just reaching out to grab food as it floats by. Others, like lion prides on the African plains must be able to explore a wide territory for game if they can't exploit the fact that game come to a water hole where they can just wait for food to come by. They have to solve a dynamic problem for how much exploration to do relative to the opportunities for exploitation. Every species has a programmed sweet spot that guides their behaviors. The higher species seem to have a larger interval of acceptable trade-offs around that sweet spot; they can shift the trade-off as circumstances dictate. But they still have a basic sweet spot that is conditioned evolutionarily by their fitness in their niche over the long haul.
In humans we have an extremely interesting variation of this exploratory-exploitive behavior. For most of our history it has served us well, but now I'm not so sure it is contributing to the fitness of the species. As with all animal species humans have an evolved sweet spot with a rather large range of positions that have varying payoffs. But over the last ten to twenty thousand years I think something very profound has been evolving due to the change from hunter-gatherer societies to settled agrarian societies. It appears that humans are evolving not one, but two sweet spots on either side of the original one. In other words, humans are seeming to be bifurcating into those who are more exploratory leaning and those who are more exploitative leaning. Those who are more willing to try new things and those who are happiest just continuing to do what they have been doing all along. Sound familiar?
Interestingly a similar bifurcation seems to be taking place on the altruism/empathy — self-serving/self-referencing spectrum (the personality type that can lead to narcissism). It is now clear that there are people who lean toward communitarianism versus those who lean toward individualism. And, I would hazard a guess that what we are seeing in this separation into two camps or ends of a spectrum, is that these two spectra are actually linked genetically. I'm betting that if we discover genes that influence someone's tendency toward exploration versus exploitation we will find them coupled with those that influence communitarianism versus individualism such that the former in each category are linked as are the latter in each category. All that is necessary is that they be on the same chromosome and so close together as to be relatively immune from cross-over during mieosis! That shouldn't be hard to demonstrate.
OK, so that is a bit speculative but come up with a better theory to explain what we are seeing in the separation between progressive/liberal persuasions and libertarian/conservative ones. The contrast is stark as is the widening chasm that separates these two “types”. We may be looking at two subspecies of humans based on these personality divisions. They even seem to breed selectively (assortative mating), which would accelerate evolution toward speciation!
Republicans and Democrats are becoming less and less able to see each other as fellow humans because they are evolving to be less like each other. They are evolving away from an ability to cooperate (though it seems the Democrats are a little more willing to try to find a cooperative solution, perhaps because they are the more exploratory and communitarianists).
There is, however one common idea that they are seemingly able to agree on that has grown in importance to both mind sets. It too is a result of the biological mandate, but taken to an extreme. It is the notion of profits as the raison d'être for the economy. Growth, just because we all accept that as the good, for its own sake, is universally taken as the only way to live on this world. Industry through capitalism emerged as a commonly held belief that this was the route to human happiness, that greed, which drives capitalists, was good. No matter what your political leanings this one idea trumped all others. The political perspective determined not whether capitalism and profit were the good, but only how they were to best be executed. Exploratory/communitarianism calls for regulation to keep the system from getting out of hand and a fair sharing of the rewards with all. The exploitative/individualists are convinced that it is every man for himself and the invisible hand that Adam Smith wrote about will take care of regulation from within. Neither group disputes the rightness of capitalism as a model for economics. They just differ in terms of how they think it best achieved.
Now, it turns out the one thing they all agree about, growth and capitalism, is the worst thing for both humanity and the Ecos. And what they do not agree about, how to achieve it, amplified by this process of sub-speciation, is leading us down the worst possible path toward destruction. They will fight tooth and nail to prevail.
Because growth and capitalism have now started to diminish well being as resource limits are being approached, the system as a whole is starting to fail. And that motivates each side in the various debates to insist more strongly that their political philosophies are the most appropriate to ‘fix’ things. It never occurs to either side that the problem is in the one thing they both agree on. Talk about irony. The figure below shows a somewhat different (though similar to Figure 1) view of the political system as things have evolved with the dynamics produced by these political theories motivated by greed.
Figure 2. A systems diagram of a general political/governance system evolving under the prevailing beliefs in growth and greed (modern capitalism). Processes are shown outside the social system (purple oval) but are in fact composed from components within that system, namely people. Resources are shown entering that system and wastes (material and heat) exit in balance. The clouds represent ideas and beliefs held by the polity. These are not necessarily informed by science (and most often are not), but rather by experience that has developed over the ages. Ovals are processes. Governance principles are the results of ideas that have been codified in constitutions, governmental institutions, laws, and general mores. The government, represented by the dashed oval, carry out logistical and tactical decision making, setting policies and issuing instructions to the civil society, economy, etc. that makes up the society, however arranged (i.e. representative democracy, confederated states, free enterprise, etc.). Human nature is clearly a subsystem operating within society to produce ideological principles (e.g. conservative approaches to problem solving) and an overarching set of beliefs that can produce negative effects on those ideological frameworks (lightening coming from dark cloud). Capitalism, as now practiced, would seem to be such a harmful effect on both left and right leaning ideologies.
The still believed promises of wealth from capitalism drive both sides of the political spectrum and even those in the independent category. As the whole system fails to deliver on that promise all parties have become shrill in promoting their particular ideological fix and blaming the other side for all that is wrong. But they will not face up to the reality. For example, consider the situation with the financial system, especially the culpability of the bankers and investment brokers in the many clearly fraudulent practices that have taken place since the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act. In spite of the severe damage done to individuals (e.g. wealth disparities and job losses) neither party has the intestinal fortitude to force serious investigations or punishments. Why? Because they are convinced they need the bankers and brokers to keep the economy going, and they foremost believe in “free enterprise”, capitalism, and growth, which right now depends entirely on expanding the money supply through financialization. If you put those guys in jail the entire system comes crashing down — the illusion of prosperity disappears in a puff.
The Show Must Go On
It doesn't matter if the clowns are crying. The show must and will go on. We haven't even gotten to the really interesting acts here in the US. We still have conventions and debates to watch. We still need to be thrilled by the Republican VP selection. We still have to watch the intensifying horse race (who will win the most dollars in campaign contributions?) We still have to watch in apt amazement as candidates attack more viciously their opposition. This is going to get a lot better — if you like blood and gore.
Shakespeare said it best (as usual),
“It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”
Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5).
Our political process is in a shambles and has been for a very long time. I assert this is the case at all scales but is most acute, and most felt, at the national levels. There is no global level since there is nothing really close to a global governing body (though the UN and NATO are rough attempts toward that end). Nation states are faltering in increasing numbers. And it is all because the politicians and citizens are failing to recognize a simple fact. We are in contraction not expansion. The old ideas about economy and social justice, and governance simply do not hold under these conditions. And the idiots, as Shakespeare said, are blabbering nonsense at increasing volumes. They are in open combat (e.g. the debt ceiling standoff) and unable to find any way to move forward. Of course that is simply because they have no idea what a way forward looks like. They have no idea what is happening to our world so they simply do what comes naturally and blame the other side for all woes.
I have decided, after more than forty years of participating in the political process, that the system is so badly broken that further participation is futile. My general conclusion is that it really doesn't matter who wins the presidential race. It won't matter what party prevails in either houses of Congress. No matter who the electorate sends up (and I am convinced that will be people bought by corporate interests, certainly not public awareness and understanding) they will be unable to do anything useful. Neither party has a handle on the real crises we face let alone formulas for fixing anything. Besides that, I think the collapse of the whole process is imminent. It may even come with the election cycle in full swing. A major riot at one or both conventions will almost certainly put big nails in the coffins of the two-party system in the US. The new Greek government, in acquiescing to the EU's demands for more austerity may find itself in deep trouble and full blown revolts. Same for Spain. And then what?
From my limited perspective the only thing to do now is sit back and watch the show. It may provide entertainment value, but little else. There will be an election in the US. Someone will take over the White House and some party will dominate one or both houses of Congress. The Supreme Court won't change much but they have already shown themselves to be completely clueless so we should continue to see idiotic decisions in any case that involves economics or politics or social values (the court decision on health care, where Chief Justice Roberts may have accidentally sided with the liberals and calling the insurance mandate a tax still hasn't been figured out, was a fluke). The President will be ineffectual regardless of who sits on the throne. The Congress will continue to do damage to the country and the world regardless of which party prevails. In short I expect things to get noticeably worse after January. Most of that is because we still haven't found the magical neoclassical economics way to substitute for critical materials and cheap high power energy. And without doing so there is only one direction the economy can go. But also, I expect the problems associated with this to be amplified by a political and governance system that simply doesn't work anywhere near what an ideal system would. The one thing you can count on is human nature. Sadly.
I think it is Old Yeller time for growth capitalism. I used to think it wasn't worth voting, but have recently come to think the best thing is to pick the candidate that will bring the system down the fastest and hence compassionately. Though I may not remember him quite right, Jean Baudrillard talked about fighting absurdity by being more absurd, which is sometimes fun to try in social situations where politics. Growth capitalism (absurdity) can only be fought with the most extreme forms of capitalism, so as to end it as fast as possible. And I think Romney (an extremely absurd candidate) fits the bill this election. Though unlike the Old Yeller story, I hope there are no little growth capitalist puppies in our descendants future.
Posted by: Brian | July 29, 2012 at 05:55 PM
George, I assert that the political system (militarist-imperialist rentier corporate-state) IS working just as it was transformed and designed to work by the Anglo-American, German, Dutch, Swiss, and Milanese rentier Power Elite by, for, and of the rentier Power Elite. It is not a "conspiracy" but the result of self-selection, self-preservation, and evolutionary fitness under the given circumstances made possible because of the unprecedented surplus of fossil fuel net energy surplus (and high exergetic equilibrium for resource consumption per capita) during the peak Oil Age era since the 1870s-80s.
George and all, please consider the chart data at the links below (these data are largely unknown by the mainstream economics intelligentsia, ARE known by the national security community and well-connected Wall St. and City of London types, and considered incendiary to the status quo messaging by DC and Wall St. and thus are virtually verboten, so view the data while you still can):
GDP: https://www.box.com/s/b6d1d9f505f29a94e51c
Japan and China: https://www.box.com/s/d221e0a12561fb4e6eed
Equities and bonds: https://www.box.com/s/a881546eaf3709235c02
Employment: https://www.box.com/s/ecd154857a3544bf1335
Population: https://www.box.com/s/940785c7df829d54eb26
How will we (Boomers and older Xers) handle our losses?
So, the question again is - what will you do when the contagion hits your neck of the woods? How will you react to the devastating losses that are forced on you by natural developments and by human actors? There are certainly ways to prepare and insulate onself from these risks, many of which have been discussed on TAE, but no one can ever be certain that they will avoid the worst of it.
P.S. George, FWIW, my post to the previous thread, "Watching the Economic System", disappeared or did not appear.
Posted by: Bruce | July 29, 2012 at 05:58 PM
It's hard to add value to the debate George - you've covered it so comprehensively. I can't see how anyone with more than one functioning (and reasoning) brain cell could disagree with anything you've said here.
Looking around at other sites tackling the same issues, I often see references to preparing for the collapse. In particular, some people believe that stockpiling food and water makes sense. (I won't bother your readers about those pseudo-humans who "think" that stockpiling weapons is the answer.)
In my opinion, this stockpiling of resources is absurd. No one could hoard enough to survive for long enough - possibly decades if not indefinitely. If somehow they could amass huge stocks, they would simply be a huge target for have-nots using overwhelming force. Although you have referred in previous posts to the laudable concept of setting up remote communities of proto-true-sapients, this is untenable in most other countries such as where I am, where there is no place to hide out amid congested land masses.
The sapient response would be to keep a form of painless death to hand, I presume a lethal pharmaceutical concoction - and sufficient doses for all members of the household/communal group. Sapients wouldn't choose to go around killing others for their stockpiles, unless they have relinquished the mantle of sapience and reverted to crude animalism.
Until food and water scarcity brings the onset of starvation, let's keep on keeping on and watch the show. Maybe something unexpected will intervene to avoid collapse and starvation. But let's not deceive ourselves that survival via stockpiled resources is in any way feasible.
Posted by: Anywhere But Here Is Better | July 30, 2012 at 07:19 AM
FWIW, a reposting from the previous thread (automation of jobs, smart systems, networked science, end of human labor and wage/salary income, intelligent-systems society, energy accounting, energy distribution card, social dividend, etc.): http://tinyurl.com/cj5dhrk
The loss of trend US real GDP growth since '00 is nearly 20% and counting, and a loss of 27% per capita that would have otherwise occurred had the long-term real GDP and per-capita rates continued at 3.3% and 2.1% respectively.
Had the US economy grown at the long-term trend rate before '00, the US would have 20 million or more jobs at this point. At the compounding rate of deceleration of post-'00 growth of real GDP, the US will have lost 40% from the long-term GDP growth trend by '20 (where Japan is today from the peak in '89-'90), resulting in 35-40 million fewer US jobs with a population growth rate of 0.7-0.8% in the meantime.
The acceleration of technological advances, including smart systems with embedded algorithms and increasingly robust decision-making capacity, is occurring at a rate and scale which is now well beyond the ability of established organizations and the labor market to adapt. Virtually every job that can be fully automated will be in the next 5-10+ years, including accounting, finance, real estate, title insurance, banking, taxes, logistics, inventory, production, retail, gov't, systems programming, education, medical diagnostics, architecture, graphic arts, music, animation, and on and on.
The US BLS estimates that 60% of the fastest-growing occupations will be in "health care", i.e., medical, dental, therapy, veterinary, etc. But this sector makes up 17-18% of GDP and has grown at a rate TWICE that of GDP since '00-'01, putting it on course to become 50% of GDP by the mid-'20s to 100% of GDP by mid-century. Clearly, the sector cannot continue to grow at the expense to profits, payrolls, and gov't budgets.
The author(s) of Design in Nature make the case that the natural hierarchical system of flows and increasing efficiency of movement of larger masses along the planet's crust via tree-like distributional structures is all good. But the distribution of income and wealth is just the opposite flow in the existing system on a finite planet: Gains from efficiencies flow from current and future after-tax labor product to the top of the hierarchical system of income and wealth distribution and power relations, reducing resources per capita at the lower levels of extraction and labor product; this in turn will reduce future flows to the top and result in a decline in overall systemic exergetic equilibrium per capita.
Smart systems, RFID, surveillance, etc., will only exacerbate the negative scale effects to firms, gov'ts, academic institutions, the labor market, and households hereafter, and then concentrate further gains to the top of the hierarchy.
The response by economists, policy makers, and politicians to date is trillions more fiat digital debt-money reserves for banks, upper-income and payroll tax cuts, encouraging more student loan debt and transfers to the costly "health care" system, and unsustainable spending and deficits to GDP and receipts; that is, more flows to where income and wealth concentration is already extreme, depriving the rest of society with no mechanism to reverse or redistribute more equitably the flows per capita.
Yet, Jeremy Rifkin argues that "lateral power", "renewable energy", "smart grids", and EVs will save us, creating "green jobs" and turning every home into a micro-generator of "clean energy".
Of course, what he means by "energy" is electricity, but it is not at all apparent that there will be a net increase in GDP such that there is an associated net increase in employment given the aforementioned effects.
Posted by: Bruce | July 30, 2012 at 08:39 AM
My comments are the usual (just waitin' for the big leg down in the collapse), so i'm gonna submit this instead for George and all his dear readers:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-30/towards-unified-field-theory-too-big-fail-banking
i'm sure most of us are as creative in this endeavor as anyone else, so give it a try (ie. illustrate your perspective on the financial sector, or anything else you might like to comment on).
Posted by: Tom | July 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Why is everyone so obsessed with growth? You might think "Why can't we just live in a 'steady state' that is indefinitely sustainable?". I think there are three main reasons:
1: We're constantly using up non-renewable resources. If we stood still, our resources would decline over time and we would become steadily worse off. We have to keep growing our resource base even to just keep pace with the decline. Very few resources are genuinely and completely inexhaustible.
2: Population always tends to increase - if there is no growth in resources, then population will be curbed by poverty and starvation, and no-one finds that acceptable. So, our resource base keeps increasing because population keeps increasing, and vice versa.
3: Everyone wants their life to improve - things which were once luxuries become things we believe we're entitled to, and their absence makes us feel deprived. Therefore even if population isn't growing, our resource consumption and waste production will still tend to grow.
I don't really see any way out of this without changing several completely fundamental aspects of human nature, which doesn't seem likely. We can perhaps imagine a 'sapient society' which has solved all the problems but it's not one that most people would welcome living in. We would have to give up essentially all of the comforts and conveniences of modern life, become happy with a high level of infant mortality, accept rudimentary or virtually non-existent healthcare, and eschew anything much beyond (or even including) stone age technology. As soon as we start to exploit anything beyond the very few inexhaustible resources in the world, our existence becomes unsustainable. Here in England we left the neolithic because metals became available, but to make anything useful out of metals you need heat, which means you have to cut down more and more trees, or dig up coal... and you're on the treadmill of growth, using up finite resources faster and faster (such as coal), or using up resources faster than they can be replenished (such as trees).
It's in our nature as the products of evolution to always want more and better, and to want to fill the world with our offspring. I don't see that changing.
Posted by: Icarus | July 30, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Icarus, yes, well said. Now what?
For centuries, every 50-60 years or so, states and empires dealt with the overproduction and localized overpopulation issues with mass violence and destruction of life and property, and by expropriating resources from conquered foes. Over time, we exploited increasing supplies of cheap fossil fuels and raised the exergetic equilibrium to today's unsustainable plateau per capita.
Again, now what?
Human scientific and technical knowledge, interconnectivity, and net energy surplus are becoming increasingly embedded in smaller devices and at increasing scale, which is about to displace labor product on a scale scarcely imagined, subsuming with it trillions of dollars in labor income, benefits, and consumption.
We have reached the log limit bound at the terminal deceleration rate of increase of, or contraction of, net energy, debt-money, cheap liquid fossil fuels, wages, tax receipts, and real GDP per capita, even though we are likely to see continuing growth of biotech, nanotech, genomics, interconnectivity/interoperability, and robotics replacing labor across sectors at an accelerating rate over the next 5-10+ years.
Collectively, if we're paying attention to any of this, or have even the foggiest of notions what is going on, we're like a deer staring into the bright beam of headlights from an oncoming auto. Most of us are utterly clueless about what is happening in the techno-scientific sphere that risks quite literally eliminating not only our livelihoods and incomes but putting our individual, household, and societal survivability in peril.
Many cavalierly claim that such talk is evidence of paranoia, seemingly unaware that it is happening at a blistering pace right under their noses; or perhaps so far out ahead of their noses that they will never perceive it until it is established and fully functioning.
Imagine a world in which one robot or a few GODSS (Global Operative Distributed Smart Systems) can perform the work of millions of brains, arms, and hands for a fraction of the cost per unit and per capita, rendering human labor utterly obsolete for the vast majority of functions.
Then imagine billions of humans made unemployable at any wage and without income to secure debt-money to purchase necessities, thereby resulting in a society and division of automated labor using solar- or hydrogen-based energy that not only does not require humans but is so efficient in self-replication, self-maintenance, and self-awareness that nearly all humans are a nuisance and burdensome cost to the Brave New World of robotic production and management in service to the rentier top 0.1% and a necessary techno-scientific elite to manage the system for their benefactors.
I have little doubt that this is the path we are already on and on which technological advances are accelerating and leaving virtually the whole of the human ape species behind in its wake as modern humans left behind Neanderthals, and Iron Age and Oil Age humans accelerated passed hunter-gatherers and nomadic, pastoral societies.
There will soon be no place on Spaceship Earth for us neo-Neanderthals.
Posted by: Bruce | July 30, 2012 at 06:43 PM
Thank you, Dr. Mobus, for so assiduously turning over the humanure. But a wise person had once advised me that it is sometimes better to leave the bucket undisturbed: the more you stir it, the more it stinks.
The paradigm shift out of "growth" will not come easy. As Francis Bacon said about greatness, some will be born into it, some will attain it through their achievements, and upon some - the rest, the multitude - it will be thrust. Sink or swim.
Posted by: Robin Datta | July 31, 2012 at 03:04 AM
bruce,
when i first started surveying landscape of people on the Internet that are "concerned about the fate of humanity" i searched a lot
your last post reminded me of the material at http://www.unificationtheory.com/
i think if not in substance at least in style you may find that material in some ways "satisfying"
BTW, i do not endorse the material as particularly useful; i merely share an observation that your recent post reminded me of that material
and for the question you often ask ("now, what?") my answer has been: just keep on going with whatever makes you happy at this particular moment or will make you happy in the near future.
the best anyone can do is to make himself happy so that people around him or her can benefit from this happiness
because happy people have no problems
and to be happy one just needs to realize that "alive" = "happy", the rest in our minds (fears, desires, emotions, ego, pride, "what we think we know when in fact we know nothing", and-so-on-and-so-forth) is just an illusion which we can always turn off at any time we feel like it
Posted by: Aboc Zed | July 31, 2012 at 05:27 AM
'. . . to be happy one just needs to realize that "alive" = "happy", the rest in our minds (fears, desires, emotions, ego, pride, "what we think we know when in fact we know nothing", and-so-on-and-so-forth) is just an illusion which we can always turn off at any time we feel like it'
AZ, therefore, "to be happy" is likewise an illusion no less so than similar or counterpart emotions.
Similarly, desiring "to be happy" when all around most of us are not for myriad reasons is certainly understandable, but also fraught with risk of being disappointed and thus being unhappy.
That said, letting go of (or experiencing detachment or no one or "no-thing" to let go of any-"thing") desiring happiness and escaping from the desire to be happy reveals the infinite space within which there is "what is" (or "all what exists" from the site to which you refer).
What we think we perceive as "real" (objects, emotions, "self", time, the thinker, "mind", etc.) are but illusory holographic projections from the remarkable spongy mass inside our skulls, which is limited to biochemical/bioelectrical processes occurring within a few cubic millimeters at any one moment.
So, yes, to your point, every "thing" the brain constructs and projects is an illusion, including the thinker thinking he should be happy and thus consciously or otherwise wiring the brain to construct a "reality" based on desiring to "feel" or "be happy".
Posted by: Bruce | July 31, 2012 at 06:57 AM
Bruce, you ask the crucial question: "Now what?" We each have our own answer to that, of course. Mine has become "Wait and see what unfolds."
Here is a series of questions-cum-invitations I've been extending to myself recently:
- What would it be like to move past the usual behaviors of clinging to the past, judging the present and fearing the future?
- What would it be like to lay down all expectations and belief, and simply live with What Is?
- Might this radical approach open my heart and calm my mind sufficiently to let me see opportunities that my normal closed behavior hides from me?
- Might it allow me to live more deeply and richly even as I am buffeted and spun by the forces of change?
- How would I prefer to face my inevitable death - filled with awe and wonder, or brimming over with bitterness and regret?
- What would happen to Me if I chose to live as a fully human being? What does that idea mean to me?
It's exhilarating to limn the possibilities of an inherently unpredictable future. Those of us who try may legitimately congratulate ourselves on our perspicacity and bravery. But perhaps even our careful, courageous, clear-eyed analysis doesn't (and even can't) describe it all.
Can we allow ourselves to leave some small chink through which the unexpected might appear? Would we recognize it if it did?
Posted by: Bodhi Chefurka | July 31, 2012 at 07:33 AM
Bodhi, you describe far better than I can my own experience of self-inquiry in recent years and going back 20-25 years by now.
As for the unexpected, while it's a cliche now, I have been conditioned for well over half my life to "expect the unexpected" as "the norm", even while recognizing that "reality" conforms rather more closely to what is sometimes referred to as "chaos", i.e., "ordered randomness" within fractal dimensionality.
One's life course is much more deterministic than we in the West would prefer to believe, or want it to be given our having been socialized to hyper-individualism (atomization) and that each of us can "be whatever we want to be".
I share most of what I do on this (and other) forum (fora) because (1) I have a knowledge-seeking and sharing personality type, for better or worse, and (2) it is my experience that most of us are not aware of the biophysical, economic, financial, social-demographic, and political structural frame or limits facing us as individuals, which in the aggregate renders most of what we perceive as "reality" or "solutions" utterly irrelevant to what is immediately ahead of us.
Of course, "knowing" is not by itself being prepared to adapt successfully, if such a thing is even realistically possible. Knowing that one knows one might not be prepared is a first step to a fuller understanding and experiencing of "What is" and being resolved in it.
Posted by: Bruce | July 31, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Bruce, like many others on this board - including our generous host - I share your thirst for knowing and your desire to share. One of the things I appreciate about Dr. Mobus is that he has not succumbed to emotional reactivity in the face of this knowledge.
Giving in to the toxic combination of knowledge and fear creates a particularly unhelpful sort of Cassandra impulse - one I call, "Quick, everybody wake up and kiss your children goodbye!" Of course it's hard to communicate the enormity of this perception without sounding at least a little florid - my own web site is an unfortunate testimony to that impulse.
On the other hand, I'm convinced that the growing awareness of limits and tipping points is acting as a springboard for many. It seems to vault some people into deep self-inquiry in an effort to come to terms with the intense feelings the knowledge can generate. Down in that well of self-inquiry many people are finding an interesting sort of liberation - holding the paradox of human potential and objective finality can do that to you. I'm convinced that this particular brand of moksha can take the lock off whatever unexpressed sapience we might have as individuals.
On the third hand, I find myself becoming less enamoured of knowing and doing these days, and thirsting instead for stillness. Partly this is because I feel that knowing and doing have a poor track record - they're what got us into this pickle - and partly it's from feeling that what's really needed right now is to find the center.
Posted by: Bodhi Chefurka | July 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM
bruce and bodhi,
can i ask you to check out the material on "unification theory" that i posted above
since you like learning and sharing it would be interesting to hear your comments on the language employed by the author of the material
he uses energy+information to explain all systems from micro to macro, including Universe
he talks about i-level superorganisms to be made of 3+1 fractal, cellular networks of i-1 superorganisms
a part that i find interesting is the perspective on evolution of the humans that flows out of such way of talking
humans either will organize into superorganism or go extinct
and in the view of the author the extinction is succession by other species that continue to evolve and take over the energy field of species going extinct
the author thinks it will be intelligent machines, he/she calls them "ani-metal"
i bring up this material as an example of how there can be many ways of talking about one reality
i have no doubt that the author is intelligent but for many if not all in the mainstream he probably appears as crazy man
before i end, i wanted to mention that when i read about bodhi's transition into "more stillness, less knowing/doing" i could not help thinking about the stages of our life (birth, growth, maturity, decline, death) and the level of physical energy and knowing that correspond to them (high energy/little knowing ===> low energy/ a lot of knowing)
Posted by: Aboc Zed | July 31, 2012 at 07:49 PM
AZ, despite its name, the approach you point to seems quite reductionist to me. That way of understanding What Is is not useful to me at the moment, but it may be very helpful to someone else. Not that I necessarily prefer holism - or even monism - in any absolute way. I simply try to choose the mental tool appropriate to the task at hand and the inner and outer results I wish to obtain.
He is modeling What Is in the best way he can, given who he is right now.
Posted by: Bodhi Chefurka | August 01, 2012 at 06:44 AM
bodhi,
i did not suggest his approach as suitable for you or anyone else
i understand that each of us employs the language that reflects our path to this very moment when we happen to communicate
i understand that you may be reluctant to express your opinion or criticism beyond noting that the material is not how you would say it
maybe i ask for too much when i ask for words
maybe silence is the best we can do
Posted by: Aboc Zed | August 01, 2012 at 08:05 AM
It's not reluctance so much as disinterest in that style of thought. I intend no judgment against words or for silence, it's just that I'm the wrong person to ask right now.
Posted by: Bodhi Chefurka | August 01, 2012 at 08:35 AM
AZ, I tend to agree with Bodhi's impression that the author's approach is reductionist, but I don't perceive it as detracting from the presentation. After all, he, Sr. Carlos (?), is attempting to apply scientific logic, which can be quite elegant to those of us of the more geeky persuasion.
Beyond that, as I have related here in past posts, I am persuaded that the accelerating techno-scientific advances are occurring at a virtually incomprehensible rate for absorption and practical synthesis of the overwhelming pct. of the population, even those of us in the so-called advanced societies. Biotech, nanotech, genomics/genetic engineering, semiconductor physics, molecular/quantum computing, smart systems/networks, and algorithmic computational schemes are technologies that are so far beyond the knowledge and understanding of the typical human ape as to be practically incomprehensible, i.e., "magic", akin to a Stone Age human being given a scientific calculator and asked to solve differential equations.
IOW, increasingly advanced human and machine knowledge and computational power is running so far ahead of our hunter-gatherer evolution to date as to risk rendering the overwhelming majority of humans and our supporting institutions, division of labor, and system of resource, income, and wealth extraction, allocation, and distribution quite literally obsolete within a generation.
Those with the cognitive capabilities, socioeconomic position, access to surplus net energy per capita, and institutional embeddedness are educated, socialized, allocated, and rewarded for continuing the process of "humachine" evolution, if you will; but they are not rewarded to concern themselves with the larger consequences of their discoveries and so-called "disruptive technologies" and their effects on the rest of society; they serve the interests of the corporate-state (descriptive, not a value assessment), the values and success with which they self-identify.
No human being at the hunter-gatherer level of evolution can hope to compete for his subsistence with an algobot or effective slave laborer working for a few dimes per hour and himself being forced to compete with the emergent sub-species of "humachine".
"Humachine" knowledge and capabilities are currently the manifest driving force of conspicuous evolution of the techno-scientific elite "sub-species" being enabled by the increasing wealth and income concentration to the top 0.1-1% of the hierarchy of social, economic, political, and techno-scientific power relations.
But, again, this IS manifestly the process of evolution. What is not pleasant to perceive for the vast majority of us and our progeny, having failed to win the genetic and socioeconomic lotteries, is that it is conceivable that the evolution of the "humachine" does not require more than a tiny fraction of us biological humans to be successful hereafter.
For the sake of the vast majority of us, let's hope that those with the capability to do so isolate the human compassion and sapience genes in order to genetically engineer the traits into the "humachine" genome so that the species will be more likely to dispatch with us efficiently and compassionately when the time comes.
http://www.unificationtheory.com/astrophysics/lightrelativityspecial.html
Speaking of elegance, the reference to humans existing in the dimension of light has both a scientific/physical and metaphorical basis. "Humachines" will likely similarly function, at least initially, on the basis of renewable solar energy at a level of efficiency of work per energy unit per time no human can possibly match.
Therefore, it follows quite logically that that which illuminates the way to successful human evolution is the energy of the Sun, efficiently utilized by "humachines" in much smaller numbers than humans today within a hierarchy of renewable flows.
P.S. In the context of what is perceived as normative expectations by the vast majority of us, this kind of thinking is most definitely "crazy".
Posted by: Bruce | August 01, 2012 at 08:46 AM
bruce,
i knew you would pick up on the theme that is 'close to your heart'
i am interested in your perspective onto evolution of sociality and the final stage of it for any species being eusocial superorganism
i find that perspective informative and think that if 0.1% of "humachines" somehow knowingly implement extermination of the rest of us but fail to simulteneusly achive eusociality they will not be the last word in the book of life
to me this is the avenue of thought that does not get enough attention
and i also think that sapience is necessary and sufficient condition for eusociality in genus homo
in other words anything that is less than eusociality cannot be sapient
Posted by: Aboc Zed | August 01, 2012 at 09:45 AM
AZ, good points, as always.
Would you care to relate what requisite conditions you perceive as necessary for eusociality at some given hierarchical scale? The ant colony or bee hive is often presented as an exemplar or ideal type WRT structure, division of labor, waste disposal, etc.
Then there's the "Borg" and "The Matrix" in popular science fiction.
Taken to the (bio)logical extreme, one can envision a "humachine" entity (or network of interconnected entities at smaller scale) so energy and waste efficient and capable of self-regeneration that it becomes biologically symbiotic with the ecological system of the planet, i.e., "One" with Spaceship Earth.
Posted by: Bruce | August 01, 2012 at 10:10 AM