Personal View site logo
Unmanageable complexity: Solutions and idiots
  • Last year many people who even have very vague understanding of economics started to feel that something is wrong.

    Next normal step is to look for problems (and find that it is plenty of them) and suitable solutions (and you can find only few sane ones).

    Most frequent idea (present in US and other large countries) - we need to build autonomous system, rebuild all local manufacturing, start doing most thing inside country, reduce dependencies. Sounds quite sane and has good logic behind.

    Yet, such system has huge issues. You just can't do it after you passed peak of fossil fuels (per capita and, now, also absolute). As such process will require sharp and significant drop of life level (you will get energy from people and use it for manufacturing building and later functioning), transition to much worse, hard jobs (in people eyes). Another problem is that most of modern factories require few people to work on them, so while you will have some jobs coming locally, they will be limited.

    Idea could be good, if implemented in the best years, well ahead of issues and coupled with really good population control and education systems.

    Next idea - we need to return to free market abstraction (Austrian economical school guys like it) and small free agents. Problem with free market is that it has big corresponding costs. In other words, frequently it can be very ineffective. It sounds very good to start eating organic food, make very small farms and close big food factories. But. Such approach in most cases also leads to less effective energy and resources use.

    If you have low population density, big amount of cheap available resources and vast amount of land - free market can be very effective thing, as it behave like liquid filling every hole, looking at every basic need. As time passes free market starts to just burn resources and energy, making artificial needs. With start of energy and resources issues free market becomes enemy of itself, it starts to collapse (and you can do many things to save it, but it won't work). With limited resources you need only limited amount of manufacturers with most efficient logistics, you need only one shop located properly and running efficiently. Further you can see increase of very small agents, but not because of any progress or solution, but at it can be only available survival strategy for many people.

    All and every economic book widely known now had been written on the left part of the energy and resources chart, on the rise part. Situation on the right part will be different, and this is where we are heading now. At full speed.

  • 20 Replies sorted by
  • What would be (in this model) the consequences of Using Renewables and Microgeneration on a very large scale?

  • Vitaliy did you write that? What's your opinion of 3d printing allowing for localized, small manufacturing? About population control, I've read some studies that say human population growth is self limiting -- and not becuase of limited food resources, but because of some evolutionary biology built into living things. I've read other studies, that of course, disagree with that.

  • Vitaliy did you write that?

    Of course.

    What's your opinion of 3d printing allowing for localized, small manufacturing?

    It is a myth. It is very costly and slow thing working for specific things only.

    About population control, I've read some studies that say human population growth is self limiting -- and not because of limited food resources.

    Problem is that self limit, if exist, is too high :-)

  • In nature we see the result of over-population. Too many creatures fight for limited natural resources which results in population die-off, then cycle repeats.

  • Too many creatures fight for limited natural resources which results in population die-off, then cycle repeats.

    If you go back in blog posts you will find examples in nature of that happens. And it is usually not like cyclic thing, as population do too much harm to food and resources chains.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev I had trouble understanding what you think the problems are. Are you saying the problems with the world economy are overpopulation and decreasing amounts of fossil fuels?

  • Are you saying the problems with the world economy are overpopulation and decreasing amounts of fossil fuels?

    Spend few minutes to read posts at http://www.personal-view.com/talks/categories/blog

  • Here's a link about human populations naturally stabilizing. I won't argue these points because I'm essentially ignorant on the topic. Though if anyone wants to argue NBA playoffs, pm me. https://globalconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/world-population-is-stabilizing/

    The Myth of the Population Explosion So the primary myth I would like to explode is that, because the world population is growing exponentially, it will soon explode if we do nothing to stop it. I must admit I believed in this myth also until I learned the facts. Where did this myth come from? If you look at a plot over many thousands of years, averaging over hundreds of years, the exponential J-curve in the human population is apparent, as shown in the following graph from Population Growth over Human History.

  • The Myth of the Population Explosion So the primary myth I would like to explode is that, because the world population is growing exponentially, it will soon explode if we do nothing to stop it. I must admit I believed in this myth also until I learned the facts. Where did this myth come from? If you look at a plot over many thousands of years, averaging over hundreds of years, the exponential J-curve in the human population is apparent, as shown in the following graph from Population Growth over Human History.

    Well, it is so big and obvious bullshit. You can get much finer video by Hans Rosling about same thing.

    But problem is not in invented by idiots "infinite growth of population", problem is in current population and energy/resources state. Well, and population still grows, check Rosling data.

  • News article from today's ABC News Online:

    Human activity has pushed the planet across four of nine environmental boundaries, sending the world towards a "danger zone", warns an international team of scientists.

    Climate change, biodiversity loss, changes in land use, and altered biogeochemical cycles due in part to fertiliser use have fundamentally changed how the planet functions.

    These changes destabilise complex interactions between people, oceans, land and the atmosphere, the team of 18 scientists report in the journal Science.

    Passing the boundaries makes the planet less hospitable, damaging efforts to reduce poverty or improve quality of life.

    "For the first time in human history, we need to relate to the risk of destabilising the entire planet," says Johan Rockstrom, one of the study's authors and an environmental science professor at Stockholm University.

    Scientists in 2009 identified and quantified the nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can develop and thrive.

    The five other boundaries -- ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater use, microscopic particles in the atmosphere and chemical pollution -- have not been crossed.

    Passing the boundaries does not cause immediate chaos but pushes the planet into a period of uncertainty.

    Scientists consider climate change the most serious crossed boundary.

    "For climate change the risk to humans begins increasing as carbon dioxide rises above 350 parts per million (ppm)," says the study's lead author Professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University.

    We're now at nearly 400 ppm; we're coping so far, but we're seeing extreme weather events become worse, loss of polar ice and other worrying impacts," says Steffen.

    The study results are set to be incorporated into the new global development goals that will be finalised in September at the United Nations in New York to replace the Millennium Development Goals on poverty alleviation expiring this year.

    Scientists hope the new study will help balance competing demands for economic growth and environmental sustainability which are likely to arise during the conference.

    Despite a steady drumbeat of grim warnings, food prices have declined the past four years, indicating that wild weather linked to climate change is not destroying harvests worldwide.

    Commodity prices, a measure of scarcity for energy and other basic goods, are also falling, leading some economists to question warnings from climate scientists and environmentalists.

    But Steffen says living within planetary boundaries will not necessarily compromise the prosperity and comfort of humans.

    "Experts from technology and engineering say we can prosper with nine billion people, and stay within the planetary boundaries," says Steffen.

    "We have to be clever and we have to innovate, but they say we can do it."

  • Climate change, biodiversity loss, changes in land use, and altered biogeochemical cycles due in part to fertiliser use have fundamentally changed how the planet functions.

    Well, do not read too much mass media.

    Let me rephrase for you to see their manipulation:

    "At 105 years age most patients experience high risks of Alzheimer's disease, cancer and bones fracture."

    Well yes, but you need to live up to 105 years first. And this guys forgot to tell you that you in your 40s do not have enough food, fuel and shelter (and it is main issue).

  • Well that makes no sense at all.

  • Well that makes no sense at all.

    What makes no sense?

    What billions have not enough food and water? What food and energy inflation is very big?

  • Uncertainty.

  • Good example of idiot (yet sometime he post good things) offering solution:

    For example, I proposed a simple solution to the unsustainably costly U.S. healthcare system - go back to Cash.

    This solution would definitely lower costs and impose discipline on patients and providers alike--and for that reason, it is seen as "impossible," because the last thing patients and cartels/state agencies want is discipline that forces hard choices and rigorous changes in behavior, diet, fitness habits, etc.

    Of course it is Austrian economic school admirer idea, so we can make sanity discount from the start.

    But whole thing is hugely flawed as this guy sees the market where it is absent.
    Why?
    Because if you are ill you absolutely is not equal part in negotiations. You also lack information and skills to understand if costs have any actual foundation.
    In "free capitalism healthcare" implementation all you have is doctors ripping patients much worse than in insurance companies variant.
    Whole point of insurance system was to put some real competition for medicine business.
    Of course, due to banking system, and bad skills they just lost this battle in many countries.

    Actually, proper solution to the problem is located 180 degrees from the offered one - introduce government based free or affordable medicine (good consequence here is that you remove big expenses arising from managing insurance or payments). Add to this inability for doctors to get money illegally (full control of all their expenses and homes).

  • What I like about that solution is it encourages people to become doctors who actually want to heal people. I'm tired of these entrepreneurial doctors who care more about big money than helping people. I think docs should make a lot of money, in proportion to their high level of schooling and responsibility, but it shouldn't be a road to mega bucks. Another problem with the entrepreneurial doc is you get more surgeries -- surgery isn't always the right thing to do medically. But it's usually the right thing for a doc to do if he wants to line his pockets with cash.

  • I'm tired of these entrepreneurial doctors who care more about big money than helping people. I think docs should make a lot of money, in proportion to their high level of schooling and responsibility, but it shouldn't be a road to mega bucks. Another problem with the entrepreneurial doc is you get more surgeries -- surgery isn't always the right thing to do medically. But it's usually the right thing for a doc to do if he wants to line his pockets with cash.

    I'll tell you little secret. You can't be half pregnant. Same you can't make doctors rich, allow them to do lots of money and expect good skills and absent of ripping you off. As soon as income is high it begins to attract people who want to get money, not to heal someone.

    If you want to improve skills, you need to increase real competition, so people who become actual doctors will represent only top 20-25% of all who began education and practice.

  • I have relatives who are physicians for the US Government. They make about $15,000 per month. That's a damn good salary. They also have great benefits. That should be enough to attract top people to the profession who actually are interested in being healers.

  • They also have great benefits. That should be enough to attract top people to the profession who actually are interested in being healers.

    You do not read carefully. In contrary - high salaries attract people who are more interested in money themselfs.

  • You do not read carefully. In contrary - high salaries attract people who are more interested in money themselfs.

    No I understand you point and it's the same point I'm making. What I'm saying is the $15,000/month is far short of what the entrepreneurial class of doctors makes. In other words, I think doctors should be paid well -- but being paid well is not the same as becoming filthy rich off the profession -- which is why certain people are attracted to the profession as it currently exists.