Are Human Politics Still So Absolutely Crude That Aggregates Can't Juggle 3 Policy Tools At Once, To Achieve National Agility?

Fiscal vs Monetary vs Tax policies?

Appropriators, bankers and taxers, Oh My!

Whose policies best manage a nation and it's economy? That's an astoundingly wrong question, and wrong perspective! Sane people would say that the whole train of thought was "out of paradigm."

Fiscal & monetary & tax policy are always tools of national policy. End of discussion.

Even asking that question above is as dumb as asking whether feet, hands or mouth best manage personal coordination. Or other, equally trivial system questions.

For example, which "policy" is more important for driving your car around town ... the brake, the gas pedal, the steering wheel ... or the ability to fill up at the gas station? With just these 4 variables, we've already exceeded the number of management demands that most politicians (and economists) seem capable of handling! The answer is a resounding "ALL OF THEM, WHEN & AS NEEDED, IN FLUID, FULLY INTERLEAVED COMBINATIONS!"

Normally, those who can't master interleaved use of brakes, steering, accelerator, refueling ... in infinite combinations ... can't get or keep an automobile drivers license. So why on earth are we letting those same, clueless bozos attempt to "drive" our national policy around our current and emerging contexts?

Can you imagine the head of a National Transportation Commission solemnly pontificating that, in extreme circumstances, filling the gas tank may have more impact than using the brakes? Such a simpleton wouldn't even be admitted to an engineering school.

The various engineering teams currently creating self-driving cars wouldn't even laugh. They would grit their teeth in exasperation, and QUICKLY usher such idiots into early retirement. As in ... "please, just get out of the way, before you seriously harm your nation."

If our engineers can design self-driving cars, 

why can't our electorate design self-adapting policies?

So what on earth is holding back politics?

Are human politics still so absolutely crude that aggregates can't juggle 3 policy tools at once, to achieve national agility?

Don't answer that question ... unless you're honestly willing to be ashamed of your own nation, and finally determined enough to start making a healthy difference. 

Otherwise, just turn your stereo up high enough to hide reality, walk like an Egyptian, and remain in denial.

What an astoundingly simple question for politicians, whole electorates and their vaunted education systems to outright fail on. We have nations with hundreds of millions of people, watching their so-called economic leaders discuss whether a national "fuel, price or brake" policy is the best one at various times? BMHOTK! Please get these clowns off the stage, before they drag the level of discussion down to even slower, dumber levels.

It doesn't do an aggregate too much good to have tools in a toolkit, if they don't know how & when to best use ALL of them, on demand, with increasing agility.

"fiscal policy tends to be a more powerful tool than monetary policy in such extreme circumstances" 

... Oh, My, Taboos! The very question reveals the depth of our political clumsiness. How'd these people ever get a license to drive policy? No wonder they keep running whole nations and entire economies off the road.

How about

"don't stop juggling policies 1-3, not just during extreme circumstances .. but during ALL circumstances?" 

Ya think?


hat tip to Bill Mitchell
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32609

We Need Professionally Licensed Cultural Engineers, Not Just Fly-By-Night Profiteers Masquerading As Politicians - And Informed Voters.

If teamwork works, why don't we do even more of it ... at all levels?

"It is necessary to have [civil] organization if we are to have effective and efficient government. The only difference between a mob and a trained army is organization, and the only difference between a disorganized country and one that has the advantage of a wise and sound government is fundamentally a question of [citizen] organization." Calvin Coolidge

Yet here we are, unnecessarily waging a great civil war worldwide, between business concerns and the people whom merchants serve.

TTIP will outlaw any renationalization, once your power, water, trains etc. get privatized!

When a servant says to his customer: "Restrict your exploration of options, so I may serve you better" - he's forgetting that the horse doesn't direct the cart. Nor does the car direct the driver, or the Public Servant the public.

When servants mis-lead customers, we call it false-advertising. When servants usurp and enslave customers, we call it an evolutionary dead-end, and death spiral.

"Mass demand [for things we don't need] has been created almost entirely through .. advertising." Calvin Coolidge

Yet don't forget that we eventually discard - sometimes quickly - all that we don't need. Don't forget what happened the last time we allowed too much false-advertising to lead us off a cliff, right after Calving Coolidge left office in March, 1929.

Do we the people really need TTIP and other "trade" frameworks, any more than India "needed" the East India Company (EIC)?  Who is the benefactor? Who provides which benefits? And who reaps any claimed benefits, for how long? And finally, at what cost to the aggregate?

"This [TTIP] is a transnational corporate takeover similar to the takeover of India by the East India Company in 1757. That's the Neo-Liberal plan for globalization. 

This effectively shuts down democracy and neuters the nation state. It will lead to revolution unless enforced by police states in which the transnationals control the security forces, as the EIC did in India. 

It's not just a matter of stopping TPP and TTIP but of ending neoliberal globalization. The Right gets this. The Left not so much. So watch for a resurgence of the Right in the EZ."    Tom Hickey

What are YOUR thoughts?

Personally, I suspect that prospects for the feudal approach of right wing fat cats & gangsters - trying to emulate aristocrats - is alive and kicking, but on the tail-end of a 2-thousand year cycle.

Populations everywhere are being SLOWLY transitioning to professionally-run democracies, with hiccoughs.

It'll get a bit worse, but then things have to get better - or else.

This is cultural evolution in action; fascinating!

Imagine how long it took for human physiology to "settle" into a workable package of 40Trillion cells, ~300 Cell Types, and ~65 Organs. That adaptive tuning didn't happen overnight. Nor will cultural evolution at our current population levels.

It takes a super-village of established methods ... to grow an adaptive culture.

The core challenge is establishing AND MAINTAINING key sub-methods, for inventing & installing new cultural methods, as needed. That's way harder than, say, all the refinements made to the internal combustion engine the last 100 years.

We need professionally licensed cultural engineers, not just fly-by-night profiteers masquerading as politicians.

Until then, we're closer to disorganized crime than cultural teamwork.

Resiliency Tracks The Quality (including tempo) Of Distributed-Instrumentation PLUS Distributed-Analysis PLUS Distributed-Practice

What Is A "Technoprogressive Public Intellectual" ?

Someone one who publishes random articles about what a given individual naively thinks whole aggregates "could" and "should" do?

If an academic tweets in the world, after NEVER having worked on Main Street, and there are too few people around with relevant experience to instantly give 'em sanity checks .... are acdemics still statistically irrelevant?

For example, the presumption that there is a Longevity Dividend is so naive that it's embarrassing.

These guys don't seem to know the 1st thing about biology-101, i.e., that species lifetimes are very actively programmed, precisely to get prior generations OUT OF THE WAY of their recombinant offspring.

For Wallace's sake! We do physical, chemical, biological, sexual, behavioral & cultural recombination FOR A REASON. That reason is precisely to counteract & regulate blind, Institutional Momentum, aka, Phenotypic Persistence! If you extend the lifetime of any component in any system, the first consequence is augmented Institutional Momentum.

Here's an excerpt on augmented human longevity, from a hypothetical "Recombinant Systems for Dummies" book: "Dude, that's not always a good thing."

Increased interaction and distributed involvement I can see, but if Institutional Momentum is a problem now, extending it will help? That seems like another, very fundamental, fallacy of composition for a constantly expanding whole.

In fact, I'm constantly wondering how to titrate just what % of discourse in every discipline is completely off the aggregate adaptive path, from the onset of that discipline. I'm guessing it's far higher than most would ever imagine. It may vary from 80% to 98% for all we know. You'd have to be an outside observer with the benefit of hindsight to easily determine that. By definition, no sub-aggregate Institution is as adaptive as all of us, so that the momentum of any sub-aggregate Institution is alwyays closer to a tangent to the unpredictably meandering Adaptive Path of a whole aggregate.

Yet there must be some way for aggregates come to slowly approach aggregate-self-awareness of that ongoing challenge. How to have their Institutions (phenotypes) and use them too?

How? Surely it starts with systemic Cultural Instrumentation. In general, the more instrumented a system is, the faster it can tune distributed adjustments to ongoing variance in that system's component features.

Some have argued that few humans were individually "self-aware" until the documented self-discovery of grammar by the Greeks, circa 300-400 BC dramatically increased the numbers displaying that feature.

So when will whole electorates be aggregate-self-aware? Circa 3000 AD? Let's hope it's even sooner. The internet, and mobile phones, are exciting milestones, yet when it comes to Cultural Instrumentation, things like Facebook are still analogous to Neanderthals pounding rocks, oblivious to the approach of subtly but significantly new species.

Finally, what do we DO with our proliferating number of system components (humans) broadcasting naive views? Instrument them? That's a start. Then, how do we achieve increasingly distributed aggregate analysis of increasing proportions of prior/current/emerging data?

If aggregate success tracks the quality (including tempo) of distributed decision-making, then accelerated or continued success (resiliency) may track the quality (including tempo) of selected combinations of [Prior Distributed-Instrumentation PLUS Distributed-Analysis PLUS Distributed-Practice], not just their algebraic sum.

If none of us is as smart as all of us, that's still only useful if we can quickly INVOLVE all of us in demonstrating aggregate smarts.

That's what Natural Selection means. Selecting, by survival, that progressing combination of existing component features which is best able to survive the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune (including tempo).

Curiously, the best way to further improve the resiliency of any recombinant system, is to add subtle methods for reducing frictions and improving the tempo of coordination among existing components, rather than adding novel component variants or even markedly altering the characteristics of existing components.

Every new task has a solution, and that solution will involve another level of indirection ... by adding sub-components able to build new interfaces between existing as well as emerging components.

Here's my advice to all "Technoprogressive Public Intellectuals." Less talk, more do. Within tolerance limits, of course.

There's A Very Simple Lesson In All This. Tuning Our Envelope Of All Known Tolerance Limits

Take our embarrassing example of Greece & EuroZone Policy, PLEASE! Before more citizens get lost in the fog of fiscal war.

In other words, how the eurozone helped lead to Greece's crisis.

These are the same people who built CERN?

How did they NOT see this coming? Why aren't Europeans probing the fundamental structure of their own cultural aggregates?

And why are they taking it out on the citizens and plebes of Greece, instead of on their own reckless lenders & profit seekers? And why are citizens & plebes across Europe egging on their own feckless leaders, and encouraging them to flog the neighboring serfs all the harder?

This is the usual plight of people who know more & more about less & less, until they know everything about nothing (especially their own context)

Lissencephalic policy apparatus, convoluted cultural outcome paths.

Or, how flat-earth level, slow witted ideologues produce criminal politics, when allowed to, by citizens acting like innocent bystanders, & pretending not to be active accomplices.

It's only when policy-forming processes are nuanced enough to be adaptive, that culture evolves.

Right now, with so few paying attention to the most simplistic fundamentals of inter-dependencies, our vast stockpile of detailed data sits unattended, as everyone assumes that policy is unimportant enough to leave to the presumed process owners. Whom everyone privately agrees are idiot politicians! Go figure. Denial is perhaps most rampant among PhDs begging the excuse of being "specialists," and thereby absolved from involvement in evolving democracy. You couldn't make this up.

Have data, won't use it to drive aggregate selection. Only nitpicking.

There's a very simple lesson in this.

Recombinant aggregates can't adapt if emerging components don't get emerging feedback & then practice contributing to aggregate selection, early and often enough. There has to be overall tolerance limits for the variance allowed across the entire envelope of tolerance limits (including time constants*) for all aggregate processes.

That's the essence of system tuning, and that's how autocatalysis slowly occurs.

For those who don't understand that paragraph .... here's:

Human Systems for Dummies

1) Recombi-NATION. A human culture or nation is a massively parallel recombinant system (even more so than a forming nervous system or a whole organism growing from an embryo). Well Duh!


2) What is a recombinant system? Recombinant systems "connect everything to everything" and then relax briefly to a selected form, before doing it all again. Again, Duh!
Evolution of species illustrates a steady progression of recombination occurring less stochastically, and more smoothly & continuously. Human culture now recombines by continuous production & education of children, in pre-k & K-12 learning systems, plus a proliferating array of adult "disciplines."


3) Connecting everything to everything, before selecting what form of relaxation is briefly safe. To be blunt, if kids don't get exposed to the entire range of human thought, soon enough & often enough, then aggregate knowledge (context awareness) cannot grow smoothly, and we instead just stockpile data-minus-context in inaccessible journals & other archives.


4) Practicing Aggregate Selection is a group exercise. Our cultures & economies can't meet the challenges of selective pressure if we can't generate adequate adaptive tempo. That only comes with early & frequent practice at addressing whatever the moment-of-selective-pressure is, i.e., our biggest policy challenges. It just never helps enough, to have students tied up for decades paying attention ONLY to trivial errata that rarely, if ever, helps extract context from excessive amounts of data.


5) Tuning our whole system, not just the components. Our culture & economies also can't generate enough adaptive tempo unless we actively involve a threshold level of multi-generational involvement in pressing policy issues. If success means surviving an endless succession of unpredictable challenges in unpredictably transient contexts, then our #1 goal is not to optimize current skills, but to develop education & training systems that maintains adaptive recombination skills and doesn't let them wax & wain with too much variance. We want to survive the hour (or the business quarter, or the budget year), but we want every new ripple of graduates to be able to solve tomorrow's challenges, and we want every new generation to be able to handle the challenges that will come 2 decades out.

Zero predictive power? Seemingly unlimited adaptive power? What would you do? Try to do too much (of the wrong thing) until you're gone? Or, prepare your kids to take over AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and then ALSO train them to have kids soon enough ... & know how to train the grandchildren to again take over in their turn, as soon as possible? That's how to keep our species ship afloat, and our culture growing.

Term Limits is not enough, by far. We always need an annotated package of Adaptive Limits that includes:

term limits, plus ...
early education minima (mis-education limits),
lifelong exposure to aggregate challenges (mis-exposure limits),
lifelong training & education & work (human mis-allocation limits),
lifelong involvement in policy formation (mis-recombination limits).

This is simple biology-101 and anthropology-101. Every recombinant process on this planet meets that entire envelope of challenges ... or soon disappears from the stage.

Data is meaningless without context. It doesn't matter what we know, only what we know how, and why, to use ... to survive ... in the future, as well as today. We won't get there by knowing more about less, any more than we will by knowing less. Nor by arbitrarily paying attention to less of everything.

Above all else, we need to be agile about what and how we contribute to aggregate selection, and how we train to help our aggregate survive natural selection.

 * A "Hamiltonian" is the presumed equation describing some aspects of a hypothetical system. Similarly, members of any human team or aggregate eventually come to appreciate the critical interplay between the time constants of multiple processes. For some outcome to occur, many different, interacting processes have to occur with some minimal tempo, and deliver local outcomes within some critical period, i.e., with a maximum time constant. This is the basis of orchestral or band music, for example. It would be useful for students to formally grasp this as a named concept and ponder it, from pre-k onwards. The Grumbletonian? :)  Timing of cooperation is an inherent part of cooperation, and something that humans are geniuses at, even as babies - if that talent is developed, rather than neglected. Aggregate tuning is all about reducing NET frictions. Managing that begs for a consensus definition, and delivery of the summary data to track it.

Meeting Challenges With Logical Institution of Adaptive Change ... or ... Continually Accelerating End Runs Around Institutional Momentum

"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection*, except of course for the problem of too many indirections." David Wheeler

More usefully ...

ALL PROBLEMS IN DEMOCRACY CAN BE SOLVED BY ORGANIZING ENOUGH TO LEVERAGE RATHER THAN MERELY SUFFER MORE LEVELS OF INDIRECTION.

These and other statements about indirection are actually concise summaries of the theory of adaptive evolution. Sure we have plenty of old & new challenges, every year, if not every day.  How do we meet and survive them?

Name your problem.

Fiat currency budgets? White Collar Crime and banking? Tax rates? College loans? Unemployment? Military Industrial Congressional Complex? Police Brutality? Blue Collar Crime? Trade Policy? Excessive Regulations? Slow Moving Bureaucracy? Pollution?

All of these can be easily solved, by teamwork and organized teams. Most will acknowledge that organized teams can do amazing things, and have been doing so for ~4.5 Billion years on planet Earth.

What's to stop us now?

If that's the case, how do we actually take arms against a sea of self-generated problems, and by organized opposition, overcome them? Here is an observable framework, which we've already been doing, for millions of years.

Key concepts:

Successive, Transient Contexts.
Toolkits.
Recombination.
"Social" organization

Over-adaptation as Institutional Momentum.

Coordination & coordination rate.
Cost of Coordination.
Return on Coordination.
Communication & communication rate.

Selecting signal from noise or "parsing."

Reducing frictions.
Autocatalysis.
Outcomes vs methods vs perceptions.
Tuning & tuning rate, for components & the whole.
Adaptive Quality (including tempo) of Distributed Decision-Making = Adaptive Rate
Aggregate Interactions & Interaction Rates.
Aggregate Context Awareness.
Perceiving the Sum of [Aggregate Actions + Diverse Component Actions]
Survival = Optimizing the Sum of [Aggregate Actions + Diverse Component Actions].
Sustainability.


1) Successive, Transient Contexts.  People learn, as they grow, that the life of a person, a family, a tribe, a corporation or a nation state involves not just one, but multiple challenges occurring as a succession of transient contexts.

2) Toolkits.  In the long history of planet Earth, we continue to unravel astoundingly diverse examples of how physical aggregates, biological species and whole ecosystems survive succeeding contexts through slow accumulation of increasingly diverse toolkits. The more complex a system is, the more ways it can adjust to changing context (not that it always does). There is a fundamental difference between how most people define efficiency and resilience. Efficiency commonly refers to performance in a given context, while resiliency refers to outcomes across multiple contexts.

3) Recombination. Recombination is the outcome of pursuing another level of indirection. When the sticks used by ancient hominids weren't long enough to make a lean too adequate for their growing band, they started recombining them together in novel forms, to make better, faster, cheaper nests or homes. Once you look, recombination is everywhere, including physiological, chemical, biological, sexual recombination of genes, tools & toolkits (even snowmobiles!), behavioral (dance? music? art? sports?) and on to the cultural recombination we call changing business systems and legal systems. We're now facing demand for supra-cultural recombination among multiple nation states. Don't expect the United Nations to go away. It's what comes next that you should be pondering.

4) Social Organization. It's fundamentally useful to remind all citizens that social species rule because of their ability to scavenge all their diversity, and keep it in their toolkit for recombination and re-purposing ... as succeeding contexts demand. Social species outdo all others, and dominate the Earth, because those characteristics, which confer overwhelming increases in resiliency.


Implications.


5) Over-adaptation as Institutional Momentum. History certainly implies that it is usually death to over-adapt to a transient context. Today's "winner" is always today's Dinosaur and tomorrow's history ... UNLESS ... that entity can unwind and recombine the very institutional momentum that allowed it to be the MOST efficient today. Going too far has implications for your survival statistics, once the direction of the adaptive race changes.

6) Coordination & coordination rate.  If over-adaptation to any one of a series of fleeting contexts is dangerous, what's the fall-back strategy? It's quite obvious, actually. Just like the runners in a multi-lap footrace may or may not be rewarded by "winning" a particular lap, they all share the goal of staying in the race and positioning to lead WHEN NECESSARY. They typically do that by hanging around the leaders, and "staying within striking distance." And what if the race never ends? What if our adaptive race through history keeps changing direction, by changing context? In that case, our survival strategy is to survive and stay in the race. Hence, the ultimate tool in our already complex cultural toolkit is skill at coordination and cooperation.

  Is it better to be biggest? Strongest? Fastest? Not for our purpose. Rather, it's safer and "better" to assume and discard any and all attributes and skills, when & as needed. Grow fur? Humans don & shed clothing instead. Muscle mass? Humans use levers & machines instead. Fangs? Humans use knives instead. Physical speed? Humans use tools, domestic animals, bicycles, cars, boats & planes instead. In short, humans survive via recombination, adaptation and evolution. We're constantly shedding whatever holds us back, and domesticating ourselves to be resilient over time, rather than over-adapted to any particular, transient context.

7) Cost of Coordination.  Yes, there is a cost to coordinating. Just look at the practice & training time any organized team has to put in ... to learn and express aggregate coordination.

  Walter Shewhart famously remarked an obvious truth, that "In all complex systems the biggest [ongoing] cost, by far, is the cost of coordination." Coordination requires an effort, in order to broadcast, receive, sample, analyze and respond to constantly increasing amounts of information from a growing number of teammates doing increasingly diverse things. Can you imagine the challenge for basketball players and coaches if basketball teams went from 5 players to 6 on successive days, then 7, 8, 9, and 10? And what if the rules, court and equipment also all changed? That's life! It's also why sports can be initially useful, but quickly becomes an exercise in form over adaptive function. Ditto for music, choreography and theatre. They don't change as fast as our world does, and hence have become useful to fewer and fewer of our expanding populous.

8) Return on Coordination.  The most immediate corollary is so obvious that Shewhart left it unstated. In all complex systems, the highest return, by far, is the return-on-coordination. In fact, the return on coordination is the only return that exceeds the cost of coordination. If evolution occurs among others who are coordinating, then we have only one choice, to die out, or keep coordinating on a bigger/faster scale, so that our team outcompetes and absorbs, all other teams. What then? What if there is one day a United States of Earth? Long before that, our own complacency and un-directed personal habits and Institutional Momentum will become our greatest competitor. How do we compete with ourselves, and thereby maintain our adaptive rate? Obviously, just by staying alive. Our current challenge is to change everything and adapt fast enough to survive ourselves. A hundred years after Wallace & Darwin, even some literature majors eventually recognized that. "Everything needs to change, so everything can [appear to] stay the same."


More Implications.


9) Communication & communication rate.  How do social, coordinating species invest in coordination, so that the return always exceeds the cost? Despite what a sitting US President foolishly claimed, evolving species do "Nuance."
Those social species (and nations, and democracies) that survive:
  Exchange more information, faster and more widely.
  Practice more, and perceive more.
  Parse more context from the expanding sea of data they generate.
  Recognize and explore more aggregate options ... faster.


10) Selecting signal from noise or "parsing."  What does an adaptive signal look like, for an aggregate constantly re-orienting to a context that is changing yet again? Basically, one that allows a 2-stage optimization task.
S = Sum[A+B], and not Sum[A] + Sum[B].

  That's how a whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. It's also how the USA wrote a Constitution and set out to "form a more perfect union."

  Both "A" and "B" have many parts, but they're used here to mean "keep the components alive AND adequately provisioned" (A) plus "grow the system" (B). Neither citizen component nor nation can sacrifice too much, nor gain excessively, if the whole is to exceed the sum of its parts. Yet between those tolerance limits we have tremendous freedom to operate and express distributed plus collective ingenuity.

11) Reducing frictions. This is both trivial and sublime. Any mechanic or race car tuner knows that reducing friction between moving parts is key to enhancing performance of a system. That's why we have oil, grease, ball bearings and precision carving or machining. Yet how many realize that the same thing applies to all the human moving parts in a social system? Much of successful military science and Officer Training comes down to systematically finding ways to reduce frictions among teammates, and making it hard for people to work at cross purposes. That's how social species allow themselves to leverage their increasingly diverse talents.

12) Autocatalysis.  How do social species actually do all these things? How do they simultaneously increase diversity, increase options and decrease frictions, so that they can explore their emerging options, and do so faster than others? The whole package is called autocatalysis, when each component catalyzes all other components to make a whole greater than the sum of its parts. That's the same way the combination of an egg cell and sperm cell catalyze the rapid growth resulting in a new, unique human, in a self-driving cascade of reinforcing triggers.
  First, everything has to be connected to everything, so everyone can see - or be frequently reminded - of dangling tasks. Then all data streams have to interact or discuss, so that analysis preserves the 2-stage optimization mentioned above. Finally, a bias to ADAPTIVE action must be present, which both triggers activity AND tempers it per the preserved connectivity. "Do no harm" gets to be a longer and longer list, as your number of co-citizens grows.

  The result is a massively-parallel calculation that is always impossible for participants to predict, in part because so many of the terms keep changing before the calculation can be completed. As an aggregate, we have zero predictive power, yet unlimited adaptive power, so far. It's up to us to figure out how to adapt, through continuous indirection.


Keys to adaptive autocatalysis.


13) Outcomes vs methods vs perceptions.  How do we keep our eyes on the prize, when the context never stops changing and the "prize" is continuously redefined? Answer, by trial and error discovery of unpredictably subtle adjustments. We redefine the "prize" as ability to survive and thrive, and we keep our eyes on that drifting outcome, whatever it takes. That means maintaining a determination to break any abandon or modify any tradition or break any taboo, as necessary, aka, practice Cultural Recombination.

14) Tuning & tuning rate, for components & the whole.  Our proverbial mechanics and racing enthusiasts understand the concept of tuning. If they're involved in automotive decathlons or fleet management, they also understand the concept of tuning for resiliency rather than breaking down before completing a multiple-race circuit. However, it's a comical commentary on narrow thinking that there are so many teams of expert "tuners" who stubbornly fight for years on end, and insist on tuning everything except their own interactions. Biology is chock full of examples of molecular, cellular, endocrine, muscular and behavioral functions that are systematically tuned to create a marvelously flexible whole, with the tuning based upon long lists of subtle, "if-then" variations on a basic theme. Just think of how many ways you can tap your finger, or move your tongue, just to start with trivial examples, before moving on to more complex examples such as speech, multiple languages and teamwork. Our survival depends on how fast we can readjust countless processes, and re-adapt them in novel ways, for novel purposes when and as needed. That means adding nuance, not avoiding it.

15) Adaptive Quality (including tempo) of Distributed Decision-Making = Adaptive Rate.   The reality of social tuning is that aggregate success follows the quality (including tempo) of distributed decision making. The tempo of trial & error learning is what biologists call Adaptive Rate. Those aggregates that can make adjustments faster, will outlast those that can't. Further, not that those who perceive possible outcomes earlier, and identify emerging options, can start making changes and reducing frictions sooner.

16) Aggregate Interactions & Interaction Rates.  In practice, this all feeds together in a constant, self-catalyzing or autocatalytic social loop.

Interactions drive awareness (personal + aggregate).
 Awareness exposes options.
  Options demand coordinated actions.
   Coordinated actions drive further interactions (restarting the autocatalysis).

Note that this reinforcing cycle occurs only IF:

Interactions remain diverse, and
 Feedback remains diverse, sent and received.
  Tempo remains high-energy.

17) Aggregate Context Awareness.  Note that an alert, aware and responsive aggregate occurs only if new components (kids & grandchildren) are quickly aware of the latest challenges motivating their nation, not just the old ones.

18) Perceiving & Exploring Aggregate (& local) Options.  All of the above only KEEPS happening if kids and grandkids remain aware that yet another context WILL inevitably appear, requiring yet a a bigger perspective to master. That way they will fully expect that challenge to appear, & will go looking for it. In the process, they will also keep building bigger perspectives on where they are and what new options are appearing, & will consider HOW to generate utilize ever more diversity (a bigger toolkit). All this will, quite coincidentally, lead them to practice coordinated use of their social+technical toolkit on an even greater scale. This is, incidentally, what humans have always done. We've just grown so quickly that we've temporarily forgotten the most fundamental lessons that our ancestors knew. Quite literally, we can't see our context for our details, precisely because there are so many of us and we're not staying as connected as we could and should be.

19) Survival is the Sum of [Aggregate Actions + Diverse Component Actions].  We can now reiterate an old truism. Making a whole greater than the sum of its parts involves a cascade of cooperative adjustments in order to achieve a shared, Desired Outcome. That's what coordination means.

20) Sustainability.  What has kept the universe, Earth, biology and humanity going all this time? It is common to say that adjustments occur only after challenges. Yet it is also true that those that survive challenges are those that had already started or continued preparing to make even more adjustments. If we are going to survive by continuously expanding our adaptive rate, then we need to make accumulation of coordination skills become our primary Desired Outcome. Ultimately, that's the best way to ensure that we'll be able to go anywhere and become anything .... regardless of the challenge.

  How do we achieve sustainability? Don't stop doing #'s 1-20, above. Add #21. 

If America only knew what Americans know ... we wouldn't have to worry about our sustainability, or the prospects for the 7th generation yet unborn.

   ###############

* Indirection, an alternate route to the same place; i.e., if the front door is locked, crawl in through a basement window in the back of the house. There are multiple paths for bypassing every obstacle.

The Best Asset To Accumulate Is A Toolkit Of Aggregate Coordination Skills

How do we fool ourselves? Let me start counting the ways, including a new way every year ... by default, since "Past performance does not predict future results."

A Science Perspective On The Decline Of Innovation

(restricted; precursors may be viewed here)

As another bit of next-epoch or supposedly "long-term" investment advice, this recent pdf contains some helpful perspectives and commentary, although the author sounds as though he's squarely within the NeoLiberal camp (see "Living the Lie" - or why they think that Social Democracy is to blame for current G7 economic & cultural ills).

This line caught my eye as the author's central premise.

"... the next revolution will be based on understanding and developing quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry and quantum biology and all that it entails."

That's a credible hypothesis to test, yet many will either disagree, right off the bat or just chuckle. The author is not specifically wrong in his comments, it's rather that he's missing the bigger context, and therefore missing the overall point. Here are just 3 counter-indicators.

1) Biology has been harvesting quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry and quantum biology for ~3.5 billion years, just on planet earth. It's called photo-synthesis, and other forms of energy-transfer. As you will see, we're not doing anything new, although some things are subtly different.

2) The author's initial premise - that occupying many possible ecological niches is indicative of an "efficient" pass-through ecology or economy - is highly subject to local conditions. As Walter Shewhart famously said, "data is meaningless without context."
(Pick 40 islands or other micro-habitats around the world, and you can find ecologies ranging from near mono-cultures to the dense, pass-through ecologies/economies the author seems to expect. Location, location, location - or context, context, context.)

3) IF one's hypothesis is that increased energy handling (efficiency) equates to evolutionary adaptive strength, then it would seem logical to expect the next stages of human evolution to reliably follow where we can go from here, energy-handling-wise. Yet there are already many well-known flaws in that argument. Even if it were true, we'd still expect surprises. In 1870, the same author might have predicted expanded development of hydro-carbon chemistry, which would have missed the expansion of all forms of telecommunications, including the internet, not to mention quantum mechanics itself. :) Don't presume it's over.

a) Energy-handling efficiency has not reliably predicted survival across niches. In fact, the opposite is exhaustively documented. The most "efficient" (i.e., "successful") species in all archeological contexts invariably disappear from subsequent or later contexts, and are labeled as species that over-adapted to transient contexts. Ditto for corporate history. Proverbial dinosaurs go belly up. Quite literally, over-investing in efficiency has been the death of most species and investors. 

b) In contrast, the recurring lead in both ancient biological as well as current economic evolutionary races are overwhelmingly documented to go to the most agile, and NOT the most efficient. Time after time.

That discrepancy between a) and b), is amply discussed in biology, ecology, military doctrine, and systems theory.

Aggregate Adaptive Rate soon trumps efficiency, every single time. Some barely-adequate mix of efficiency plus resiliency always wins. It's just a question of when.

Which calls our attention to some subtler questions.

If it's not energy efficiency, then what is it that we ought to be smart enough to be looking for? One pat answer is "survival paths," no matter how unpredictable. Next, how do we keep ourselves on unpredictable survival paths, or at least within striking distance?

If there's a unending race, in all disciplines and all economic or cultural wars, to RAPIDLY explore emerging options, based on insufficient data, then survival follows some well-known rules of thumb, and the main competition seems to be executing these principles on increasingly larger scales, which brings up unending "problems of scale."


[As members of a social species, we're now well aware that Aggregate Agility (teamwork) trumps individual agility (contrary to NeoLiberal economic doctrine). Aggregate size matters, and the scale of aggregate-agility represents the Golden Fleece. :) ]

c) pattern recognition trumps energy-handling (the minute you know what NEW signal you're looking for, it's a race to briefly ignore the noise; agile focus beats raw power, every time) ... 

d) then adaptive "recruiting efficiency" trumps energy-handling, and that combination [c & d] determines aggregate response agility (from motor-neuron pools to military "maneuver warfare" to business marketing to cultural mobilization). Serial survival of the fittest. Or, as it's termed in education theory and military doctrine, "Outcomes-Oriented Training & Education" or OBT&E.

It's remarkable how much of military doctrine consists of concise restatements of the theory of evolution. See "Return On Coordination."

Yet so-called socialists and capitalists seem to have scared each other with irrelevant details, and keep uselessly throwing their own baby out with their own, shared bathwater.

The more I think about these issues, all roads lead to a consistent answer.

How do we invest in a democracy that ensures the highest National Adaptive Rate,

... not just energy or military or business efficiency?

Remarkably, that same question is central to the history of biology, military doctrine, democracy and the onset of the US Constitution. Our consistent goal is seemingly to "make a more perfect union."

If that goal is kept in mind, then most economic issues become incidental. There seems to be a simple, 2-step optimization occurring in all surviving aggregates. Sum(i+j), while looking for those combinations that are greater than the sum of the parts.

Where i+j are respectively:

i) Keep the components alive, and adequately provisioned (it's not a functional army if the generals hoard all the weapons)

PLUS

j) Grow the Aggregate (by expanding Net or Aggregate Agility, not just agility of some sectors, nor merely aggregate size alone)

This easily falls under the category of Group Capitalism, with tolerance limits separating it from narrow Personal Capitalism (i.e., NeoLiberal orthodoxy). I predict that the intelligence to see the difference will trump efficiency at pursuing the latter, even though the latter forms of parasitism will always follow, in unpredictable patterns. Part of survival agility includes being able to harvest what's necessary, when necessary, while also leaving tools unused in expanding toolkits when not specifically needed.

We can't provide for our grandchildren by sequestering more resources. That is, quite simply, a naive idea. Few want the heirlooms passed on by their grandparents, except as mementos, because they're hopelessly obsolete.

The best assets to accumulate are Coordination Skills. If you don't believe me, ask a Neanderthal ... if you can find a survivor. Yet instead of investing in Democracy, we're killing the Golden Goose, by hoarding current fiat instead of future options.

Here's my investment advice.

The next evolutionary leap in human culture is more likely to be based on understanding and developing "quantum perspective" on our own, aggregate context, and all that that entails.

If you can help more precisely define "quantum" - i.e., subtle - aspects of human cultural or aggregate perspective, you'll not only be rich and have a busy, fulfilling life, you may well save the human species.

Interesting Things Occurring In Italy, & In Human Cultures Everywhere. A Challenge For Current Artists, In All Medias

What do we have to change in our K-12 education - and in our nation's art - to make most citizens aware of the pattern of process flow, and it's implications for our our own culture and our cultural adaptive rate?

Consider this question.

If your parent culture (and by default EVERY culture) was a developing baby-culture ....

... then what might evolving cultures of tomorrow look like?

This question is so interesting that I'm curious to hear reactions from diverse readers.

Some people are still obsessing over how our brains have already been making memories, for many million of years.

Ho hum. Ancient history.

That history is now recognized nothing more than a trivially necessary but not sufficient lesson for application on a larger scale, to current context.

After all, data is meaningless without context. So are known principles. Further, mass education learning rate is meaningless without reference to Cultural Adaptive Rate.

What matters far more are the details of how our social interactions form human culture ... or not.

Meanwhile, a tiny trickle of people - from Marriner Eccles to Warren Mosler - have been tripping over opportunities to link systems principles to everyday real life, and to our amazingly ignorant processes for setting national policies.

see http://www.retemmt.it/

and http://primaveraeconomica.it/

I remember hearing of a literature professor in the 1960s proposing that a negligible % of individual humans were "self-aware" before the advent of classical Greek literature, ~400 BC, and their "discovery" of grammar. Was he right? There's plenty of behavioral evidence for & against, so it seems to be a statistical question, not an absolute one. Most may recognize that what some of their neurons know is not always what they as an individual actually do. :) Even more telling:

there are vast differences between what key individuals and whole disciplines claim to know ..... and how their electorates actually behave.

In regards to classic Greek culture, it's sobering to consider that it took only a tiny confluence of triggers (perhaps the combination of exposure to vast diversity, plus newfound wealth & leisure?) to unleash a wholesale transfer of attention from trivial to profound interests, in a human population long past capable of doing so.

Such transitions are in general, viewed in systems science as phase shifts in autocatalysis.

Today, 2000 years after the most famous Greeks, we have a vast human population also capable of far more than it is actually doing, or even actively considering. 

It's exciting to think that we are waiting only for some unpredictable set of trivial triggers to unleash yet another transformation in collective human thought. Humanity as a whole may come out of our next transition as predominantly "culturally aware," not just with most people individually "self-aware." Such a transition in "group context awareness" may trigger cultural blossoming far greater than the transitions historically associated with the onset of classical Greek culture.

That aggregate transformation may not be marked by great advances in how much a tiny fraction of humans do know. Rather, it may be marked by great, but subtle, advances in how soon most humans are allowed to and required to know ... what few things most must know in order to produce greater Group Intelligence, and a faster Group Adaptive Rate. Military scientists at War Colleges refer to such "teamwork" adaptive agility as the "[adaptive] quality of distributed decision-making."  I'll call it simply the return-on-coordination.

Exciting times indeed!

I'm long past convinced that such expected advances will depend NOT on adding more to what we already know about simple systems like central nervous systems, but rather, in beginning to more actively disseminate and actually APPLY even slightly larger fractions of what's already known ... about system-coordination ... to our own policy coordination.

The difference between a self-tuning electorate (agile, adaptive democracy) and an un-tuned culture (past baby-cultures) will make the dramatic difference between an untuned vs a tuned V8-engine look like trivial child's play.




How do we visualize our own Evolution of Adaptive Power?

What do we have to change in our K-12 education - and in our nation's art - to make most citizens aware of the pattern of process flow, and it's implications for our our own culture and our cultural adaptive rate?

That's a challenge for current artists, working in all medias, to visualize.

We have to visualize our possible outcomes, before we can select which ones to shoot for. With every consensus national outcome adequately visualized ... we can always impress ourselves with our own, untapped ingenuity.

We know that evolving species, and cultures, constantly increase the amount of information they can process in a unit of time, which is itself relative to Adaptation Space. To speed up our own cultural adaptive rate, we need new methods. But which ones? We continuously need newer methods for increasing and tuning key communication throughput - the key to all development. And to get those methods, we have to first visualize how to select them. In all probability, we already have the required methods ... and just don't yet know what to use them for, nor why to use them.

It turns out that methods too are meaningless without context.

Here's the challenge for poets, musicians, videographers, writers and all other artists. 

Everyone's Looking for a "Better Way" - How Do We As A People Actually Achieve It?

  Visualize many Desired Aggregate Outcomes?

  Recruit more citizens to view that palette?

  Prepare more citizens to participate in SELECTING which aggregate options we want to explore?

If we don't help select where we're going, some collection of nincompoops will ... by sheer default, if nothing else.

That would be a pity, because A Group Brain Is A Terrible Thing To Waste.

None Of Us Can Select As Well As All Of Us ... IF ... All Of Us Adequately Participate In Selecting Where We're Going

Paul Meli raised a key concern yesterday.

Why Has Our US Media Come To Function As A State Sponsored Institution?

There's a particularly interesting implication in the video at the above link.

"you can have journalism, or you can have empire"

I've long wondered how an entire press corp became so complicit.  Patrick Smith indicates that it's the same creeping momentum that drives citizen complicity in the excesses of empire. It's an unregulated bug baked into our narrow approach to "capitalism."

That reminds me of a saying attributed to some Roman statesman, 2000 yrs ago:

"No law withstands the will of the people."

One nuanced translation: 

"No reality withstands the temptations of an electorate." 

So periodically, we can easily be our own Control Frauds? Defrauding ourselves of some part of our own options?

Whole aggregates, not just individuals, can succumb to rash temptations, if they feel that not enough people are either watching or willing to condemn their actions. In other words, if there are no significant consequences.

Once you know that you can act with impunity, your behavior WILL gradually start to change, and your moment of adaptation will move towards those processes shaping your own, local self-regulation, and away from distributed, aggregate adaptation (e.g., looking out for your grandchildren). Feedback? Pattern recognition? Both effect your ability to perceive the spectrum of immediate-to-sequential outcomes.

Somewhat analogously, once our nation feels that it can act with complete impunity, OUR national behavior also begins to change, also inevitably, and our moment of aggregate adaptation moves to or away from our methods for maintaining distributed national vs international feedback, which alters how we set aggregate Desired Outcomes - which in turn drive all our efforts and methods for aggregate self-regulation.

There's a deep implication in these observations. When whole nations - not just individuals - begin to condone actions they themselves wouldn't willingly submit to, it always involves the conscious conclusion that the people being acted upon DO NOT MATTER AS MUCH AS WE DO.

Overwhelming evidence, historical and current, indicates that this is a highly conserved behavior in humans, not just in other species. So it's a feature of reality that we must acknowledge and deal with, not try to ignore.

Whenever a feature is highly conserved throughout an evolutionary sequence, it has some strong adaptive value, even if it's not immediately obvious.

In this case, when aggregate experiments fail, and revert to meanness, not just any mean, it may usually have helped human cultures dissolve and shift wholesale direction, faster than they would have otherwise. Think of NeoCons and NeoLiberals as our safety valve, in case everything goes wrong. In that case, returning to stone-age thinking sooner rather than later may actually help. We may be homo sapiens, but it pays to keep a remnant of our ape ancestors around.

Note that that doesn't mean that we should put our lowest common denominator in charge BEFORE we find ourselves in grand dead ends! We still have insanely interesting options to explore. Many of those options are not possible anytime soon, if we restrict ourselves to use of our NeoLiberal monkey brains alone.

"In order to make a more perfect union" is an ideal long endorsed - in one form or another - by the majority of humans.

When and how to make selective inclusions is one corollary of that ideal, as are two other corollaries.

Whom to exclude from our union - and when?

And also, who, when and HOW to exile from our union? And, for what reasons, and to satisfy which emerging Desired Outcomes for the remainder of our union?

There are well known methods for exploring and estimating answers to these questions. We merely need to be fearless and honest enough to face them quickly, rather than just letting those feared ills occur anyway, through our inaction. For example, given sexual and cultural recombination, physical culling is rarely necessary. We just have to stop making more of or reinforcing a mal-adaptive human, habit or method, and let its representation in our aggregate repertoire rapidly dwindle. 

As always, we as a people face overwhelming pressure to make rapid decisions based on insufficient data - but not too rapidly. That's the business of nations and cultures, not just the business of individuals. Our job - individually as well as collectively - is to choose well.

There's no evolution for the detached. Success follows the depth and quality of participation, not just blind complicity. Since our aggregate selections drive all national adaptations and national outcomes, we must admit that none of us can select as well as all of us - IF we maintain enough distributed participation to add adaptive value.

Aggregate intelligence means aggregate uncertainty. Only fools, and foolish nations, are cocksure and recklessly bent on being number one, which is historically a mistake in a marathon. Staying in an unending race means positioning ourselves in THIS TRANSIENT CONTEXT to be ready for subsequent, entirely unpredictable, contexts.

What is YOUR definition of success?

Finding a better way, NOW? That's efficiency (which is meaningless without present context).

Finding ways to keep finding adequate ways to get by? That's resiliency.

As soon as we as the people can juggle two method-sets simultaneously, we can move on to juggling yet another. And another after that, someday. Even though we can't imagine what that might someday be.

The biggest question is always "HOW" to achieve more participation, from more people, more of the time.

There's no human population in history that could compete with the one we have today. Would they have stopped fighting if they knew about us and our capabilities today? Would we, if WE knew about future achievements?

Cultural Development at 31st Week of Democracy

9 Democrats who are selling out on Social Security cuts

  (Hat tip, Al_the_Electrician ‏@aldaelectrician)

So, as usual, things have to get worse before they can get better?

In health science, we'd call that a neuropathy ... a degraded ability to sense pain (until it does significant damage), which is essentially a failure to KEEP rebuilding systemic instrumentation to fit changing contexts.

You can picture that outcome, and even how it occurs, in both human physiology and human culture.

Which Trisequester is YOUR democracy in?

Is there a term for aggregate-neuropathy or even "Cultural-Neuropathy" ?

Organizational degradation?

A slowing ability to detect, parse & adaptively respond to increasing levels of useful feedback?

A constant struggle to see the signals for all the noise?

That describes all human aggregates, all the time? Ya think?

Unless, that is, we take up thoughtful arms against an always rising sea of emerging interdependencies.

I keep coming back to the analogy of adolescent growth spurts. All growing aggregates have to get clumsier before they can regain or increase aggregate agility.

With growth comes a corollary challenge. We always need newer, more refined methods for solving the task of HOW to grow, gracefully. Why? So we can have our growth, and be it too.

It's not a challenge we can ignore ... unless we choose to abort our future.

This was the America we all knew post 1776.

 
Will there be another cultural growth spurt? Here? In the USA?

If so, what will it look like?

Can't Every Aggregate Afford To Generate Their Needed Diversity ... And Have It Too?

Can anything be extended past tolerance limits?

Sure. Ever heard of "Count" Victor Lustig? He was an ironic crook.

In 1925, "Count" Lustig allegedly sold the Eiffel Tower to a group of scrap metal tycoons.

Sehr lustig, ja ... auf Deutsch!

Victor's example is from a 2-book series from from 1973, on:

Crimes & Punishment. A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Aberrant Behavior

Obviously, a pictorial encyclopedia of all human cultures would look remarkably analogous. Every culture is aberrant to what will come next .... unless everything stops evolving, adapting and changing. But that's beside the point, right?

The C&P book is clearly dated in some ways, but reveals an already mature literature strongly correlating personality dominance traits with various crime statistics, in addition to all other effects more weakly linking outcomes to contexts.

Is that proposed correlation between intrinsic dominance & crime still considered prominent, or useful, in criminology and for cultural adaptation in general? For example, the authors & editors seem infatuated with the psychologist Maslow, some of whose ideas now seem as anthropomorphic as Freud's were outright arcane.

Nevertheless, it's a fascinating read, for yet another reason. Each description of the background of bizarre criminality also implies a strong correlation with prior isolation, lack of constant feedback, lack of belonging, and overall ... failed social regulation in it's most broadest definition.

From the point of view of distributed prevention, one can't help imagine how cheap it really may be to prevent a larger proportion of all types of crime.

In cancer biology, we constantly discuss how much it actually takes to "transform" a given cell into a cancer clone. It's actually not easy, at all, especially when cells remain in their normal context, literally engulfed in a flood of continuous feedback.

This analogy comes to mind when reviewing how much cultural malaise it actually takes to socially "transform" developing youth to even the low % of overt sociopaths we call criminals, whether blue-collar or white-collar.

And, that actually segues seamlessly to a connected phenomenon. Where's the border between the main body of genetic, personality & cultural "diversity curves," and the long tails of those same curves, which we label as either "rare" diseases or fringes outside of acceptable cultural tolerance limits?

This is a rather neglected question in general biology and cultural evolution, not just cultural practices.

A) We acknowledge the primary importance of diversity, and of methods for actively driving sexual, psychological & cultural recombination.

B) Simultaneously, we still seem to try too hard to arbitrarily label that same needed diversity and recombination-methods as something to be "cured" or excised, instead of something necessary but never sufficient, to be embraced, extended, and gracefully accommodated. When in a hurry, no corner looks too short to cut ... until experience proves it to be so, well after the fact.

This oxymoron is highlighted by well known but usually dismissed differences in how physiological/personal/cultural diversity was & is handled in old vs emerging cultures. Historically, the default handling of diversity was clearly more weighted toward community accommodation of diversity. It's only in emerging cultural mash-ups that frictions build to the point of heightened efforts to cut corners & cull the low % of diversity outliers, from schizophrenia & autism on to sociopathologies and the now more than 7000 uniquely defined rare diseases. Unless, of course, the sociopaths transiently gain prominence. Then things soon get worse, even if it looks briefly attractive. Every new random modification is only another tangent, branching from a totally unpredictable future. If that weren't true, recombination wouldn't be the law of reality.

One implication is that we simply needn't be in a hurry to eradicate everything that surprises us. That's not how evolution got us this far.

So, can't every aggregate afford to generate their needed diversity ... and have it too?

What's the distributed cost of recombination, and utilization too?

Not much, it turns out, when coordination costs and the return on coordination are BOTH amortized & distributed across whole democracies. That's the simple logic of adequately and gracefully provisioning most if not all contributors to cultural diversity, as much as possible - with early accommodation and regulation, NOT expensive and pointless late removal. It's what social species do. It's easily affordable, and well worth it.

Human Aggregates Everywhere Are Constrained Primarily By Confusing Derived Numerals With Real Feedback Signals

What kind of aggregate is afraid of it's own shadows? Essentially, a moronic one.

We desperately need growing populations to grasp - by mathematics alone - that aggregate capabilities and options are NOT constrained by derived accounting metrics.

"Let's look at the substance, and not the shadow." Marriner Eccles, Fed Chief, 1938

All currencies, by definition, are simply the data thrown off by interacting citizens, not the inverse.

"The substance of our wealth is the production of our [citizens]. The shadow is our money."

Now, as in 1938, the heads of our banks and banking organizations are the LEAST systemically educated of our citizens, and it remains for us to explain to them the difference between shadow and substance, between nominal and real.

Human aggregates everywhere are constrained primarily by confusing derived with real feedback signals. It is up to all of us to systemically educate our many specialists, so that they may keep sight of growing context, and not get lost entirely within their various data streams which are producing as many incidental shadows as relevant feedback signals.

Any naive or isolated person can be easily impressed by big numbers. It requires education, training and practice to keep track of what those mean for real contexts.

Imagine how good it will feel when the moronic aggregate stops pounding it's head against it's own fiat!

Let's look at some real examples.

Scary Numbers, example #1.

Soon after you started as a single egg cell, if someone had told you that your "Inter-cellular Signalling Debt" would soon be overwhelmed with the responsibility for 40 Trillion new cells, would you have stopped growing, and laid off all your cells?

In what order? Red blood cells first, then all the other 300 subtypes, in some imagined order of aggregate value? Some humans saw this dis-unity problem coming long before we were even aware of cells to count but never quite enough to assuage our aggregate fear of aggregate shadows.


Scary Numbers, example #2.

Currency supply.

How does a currency supply work? It "denominates" all the transactions citizens can and will muster. Hence, currency supply has to grow, as a derived "shadow" (record keeping) for real citizen transactions. When any & all desired transactions can be denominated without spurious constraints, then the return on coordination is truly stupendous, as Benjamin Franklin noticed early on. OVERLY constraining a currency supply has, of course, dire consequences, then and now.

Given simple realities, what currency supply might we need today, with the many types of our 330million residents? The answer clearly depends entirely upon:

1) the rate of transactions,

2) the number of transaction types, and

3) the unconstrained distribution of transactions (so that any novel transaction chain can be created, upon demand).

As a start, just imagine that every citizen did execute just ONE sort of $1 transaction with every other citizen - per year. In that case, the year-to-year currency supply REQUIRED for rapidly denominating aggregate transaction completions would be N-factorial dollars (i.e., each citizen does a transaction with 3.9 million others in 1790, or 330 million others in 2015).

Population N-factorial in 1790 would be 3.9million factorial, (a truly big number).

Population N-factorial in 2015 would be 330million factorial, an even far larger number.





What would 330million factorial be? Awfully big. So big we don't even have everyday jargon for naming numbers that large, which are way past the $10-to-$75 trillion commonly described as circulating dollar-denominated assets (M2 + debt).

A fiat currency system addresses this scalability task by continuously & asynchronously creating & destroying "dollars" (denomination units), in multiple, dynamic ways, including loan creation, loan-repayment, fiscal spending, and taxes, while (supposedly, pending national policy) placing no control over the absolute number of transaction units available to denominate transactions.

The only thing we have to fear is fear of the number of accounting numerals we use? Seriously?

In fiat currency, we have found a way to make our IOUs, and count them too!

That final task, accounting, is essentially all that a banking system is required to do. It's very simple, actually. Bankers & economists are the only ones who can't seem to see their function for their imagined complexity!

Yet we clearly are not growing our currency supply anywhere as fast as we could, if we removed all constraints on citizen interactions and transactions. That's a problem.

We are holding ourselves back, essentially withholding fiat (public initiative). What are we afraid of? Our aggregate shadow? Afraid of what our kids may invent next? (If we LET them, anyway.)

What kind of fool tries to save (too much) initiative, aka, fiat, aka, fiat currency?

That's like accumulating energy, or fat, unused, in the hope that you can make better use of it later. As with all things, there are rather tight tolerance limits on the utility of hoarding initiative. The more of a resource you hoard, the less agile you are in wielding it's use. Yet if you have none, you're also not agile. 

It's the dynamic tolerance limits, stupid!

Our aggregate limitations are organizational limitations, imposed by lagging technical capabilities and aggregate training and practice, but NOT by the size of the numbers used to count the ongoing interaction messages, or "currency" units we use.

So, in 1790, what if someone had pointed out the colossal number of dollar bills we'd be responsible for managing one day, once our population reached 330 million, today? Should we have panicked at the sheer size of that fiat number, laid off all workers, and decided to stop all population growth (or cultural evolution) right then and there, at 3.9 million?

Lay off workers? Isn't that what we routinely do? In which order? We have thousands of types to choose from. All necessary but not sufficient, and all must be adequately provisioned if we're to increase national resiliency as well as agility. Is laying off workers a sign of aggregate intelligence?

Not if, like the proverbial egg cell, we wanted our culture to keep growing.

If there's one thing that defines American Exceptionalism, it is our historical ability to almost maintain an understanding of the power of fiat currency, and return on coordination.

Note that maintaining that perspective was a constant battle, waged largely as class war. The US currency supply was highly politicized from the onset, in two key developments, notably championed by Alexander Hamilton and the largely British Banking Lobby. The politics of money is, in reality, inseparable from class war, clan competition and frictions between individuals.

Whatever the class politics, in 1790, ~4 million citizens started our post-war currency system, printed and circulated, out of thin air, what we can call (for the sake of argument) the first $80MILLION dollars of IOU notes for prior debts alone, ignoring everyday transactions. Today, we're afraid of denominating another trillion dollars of transactions? So afraid that we're instead limiting our real interactions and NOT exploring our emerging aggregate options?

What should we be more afraid of?

Such people are a threat to themselves, as well as to their own aggregate. To evolve, we have to save them from themselves, as part of saving ourselves.

After all, what's more valuable, current fiat, or future options? Isn't the point to optimally combine the two? It boils down to what your definition of "value" is. Possessions here & now, or future survival of your lineage.