Re: Financial topics
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:09 pm
Black and White issues so it was said oh so boldly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
"Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5
When energy is added to a system then the number of states that the system can take has increased: entropy has increased.
When the boundaries of the system are expanded then the number of states that the system can take has increased: entropy has increased.
When more objects are added to the system then the number of states that the system can take has increased: entropy has increased.
As entropy increases, the probability of the system having one specific state necessarily decreases (as more states are possible). The cost of maintaining a specific state against the tide of other states competing for presence becomes higher and higher as entropy increases.
The problem, therefore, is one of the brittleness of hierarchy. The more hierarchical and inflexible a societal structure becomes in a growing economy, then the more it costs to maintain, and the more likely it is to collapse as the entropy of a system grows. In our case, the biggest drivers of entropy are increasing population, increased extraction of energy resources, and human innovation leading to new products and services. Rigid social structures, such as our governance systems, cannot survive this and it's a disaster to try to keep them going.
The inevitable collapse of a rigid state in a high entropy system does NOT threaten the bottom of the pyramid more than the top. Just like trophic levels in nature, it is the individuals at the top that are most vulnerable to extinction. Although the net numbers of deaths at the lower trophic levels exceeds those at higher levels, this is simply because the population is larger to start with. It is the % of deaths that matters when talking about the classes as wholes. As we see in nature, a moderate % dieoff low down in the trophic layers can lead to 100% dieoff at the top. In the aftermath, the population of the lower trophic levels rebounds, but former top is gone forever. (Over time, a new one may evolve to take its place).
So why does a rigid hierarchy exist in the first place? The answer is that a particular state (or set of states) is declared and is desired, or is simply selected for against a constraint. A Constitution is one such definition, for example. A different metaphor might be software, where out of the endless programs possible, we have defined a particular outcome that we want to achieve. To get to a particular state, entropy must be suppressed at all layers within the solution, something that is best achieved by encapsulation and modularisation.
We build small components within the overall solution, and we robustly encapsulate those components to prevent their inner state interacting directly with the outer state, hence reducing the entropy within the component, reducing the entropy of the wider system as a whole, and making our desired state more probable.
This explains why life exists and has the degree of modularity that it does. The 'desired' outcome is simply genetic continuance. That which failed to achieve it, disappeared from existence, whereas that which survived best was that which evolved into a form that fulfils the requirement. Nature shows us solutions at all levels, from the simplest bacteria to the most complex eukaryotes which are bound by the constraints of complex systems: compartmentalised reaction zones contained in compartmentalised organelles contained in compartmentalised cells contained in compartmentalised organs contained in compartmentalised individuals contained in compartmentalised social structures (families, tribes, small groups) contained in compartmentalised political regions.
It's also the explanation behind the elites' drive for one world government (the EU being a stepping stone on the way to that). They have an outcome that they want to achieve, a particular high-level state for the system to be in, out of an endless collection of possible states. The only way to make that a reality is to suppress entropy at the lower layers, which translates into the elimination of national (and ultimately personal) sovereignty.
Higher-level complexity requires lower-level simplicity. The larger and more powerful a nation state becomes, the more specialised (less free) its citizens must therefore be, so choose where you want to be on the spectrum and seek that outcome. (Why I chose the name Mediocritas - the State can be a good thing, in moderation).
Bringing this back to Gail's article. These realities of complex systems inform the analysis of energy in society and make it obvious that collapse of complex nation states absolutely IS strongly driven by energy scarcity. A larger population and more technological progress increases societal entropy, meaning a larger amount of energy is needed to maintain state. The essential measure is therefore: available energy per capita in light of technological progress. It really is that simple. When this number falls due to higher population, falling energy extraction, more technological development, or a combination of these factors, then it will not be possible to maintain societal state.
The role of debt is largely irrelevant. It merely serves to make the transition between states easier, but it does not change the probability of any particular state occurring (unlike energy). Debt can threaten to break down a particular state by lubricating the motion of an agent of change, but it can just as easily be utilised to revert back to that state again. Debt has never been, nor will it ever be, equal to energy.
Our future of declining available energy per capita and (hopefully) increasing science and technology, will lead to the collapse of our high-level governments. They will try to survive (pointlessly), leading to war. A better course to chart for the future would be to voluntarily and peacefully break up our largest nations into many smaller nations. This is something I have always advocated for and recently it seems that the vibe at ZH is aligning with. It is the polar opposite of the George Soros view held by the current ruling class.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-2 ... ng-answers
http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
"Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5
When energy is added to a system then the number of states that the system can take has increased: entropy has increased.
When the boundaries of the system are expanded then the number of states that the system can take has increased: entropy has increased.
When more objects are added to the system then the number of states that the system can take has increased: entropy has increased.
As entropy increases, the probability of the system having one specific state necessarily decreases (as more states are possible). The cost of maintaining a specific state against the tide of other states competing for presence becomes higher and higher as entropy increases.
The problem, therefore, is one of the brittleness of hierarchy. The more hierarchical and inflexible a societal structure becomes in a growing economy, then the more it costs to maintain, and the more likely it is to collapse as the entropy of a system grows. In our case, the biggest drivers of entropy are increasing population, increased extraction of energy resources, and human innovation leading to new products and services. Rigid social structures, such as our governance systems, cannot survive this and it's a disaster to try to keep them going.
The inevitable collapse of a rigid state in a high entropy system does NOT threaten the bottom of the pyramid more than the top. Just like trophic levels in nature, it is the individuals at the top that are most vulnerable to extinction. Although the net numbers of deaths at the lower trophic levels exceeds those at higher levels, this is simply because the population is larger to start with. It is the % of deaths that matters when talking about the classes as wholes. As we see in nature, a moderate % dieoff low down in the trophic layers can lead to 100% dieoff at the top. In the aftermath, the population of the lower trophic levels rebounds, but former top is gone forever. (Over time, a new one may evolve to take its place).
So why does a rigid hierarchy exist in the first place? The answer is that a particular state (or set of states) is declared and is desired, or is simply selected for against a constraint. A Constitution is one such definition, for example. A different metaphor might be software, where out of the endless programs possible, we have defined a particular outcome that we want to achieve. To get to a particular state, entropy must be suppressed at all layers within the solution, something that is best achieved by encapsulation and modularisation.
We build small components within the overall solution, and we robustly encapsulate those components to prevent their inner state interacting directly with the outer state, hence reducing the entropy within the component, reducing the entropy of the wider system as a whole, and making our desired state more probable.
This explains why life exists and has the degree of modularity that it does. The 'desired' outcome is simply genetic continuance. That which failed to achieve it, disappeared from existence, whereas that which survived best was that which evolved into a form that fulfils the requirement. Nature shows us solutions at all levels, from the simplest bacteria to the most complex eukaryotes which are bound by the constraints of complex systems: compartmentalised reaction zones contained in compartmentalised organelles contained in compartmentalised cells contained in compartmentalised organs contained in compartmentalised individuals contained in compartmentalised social structures (families, tribes, small groups) contained in compartmentalised political regions.
It's also the explanation behind the elites' drive for one world government (the EU being a stepping stone on the way to that). They have an outcome that they want to achieve, a particular high-level state for the system to be in, out of an endless collection of possible states. The only way to make that a reality is to suppress entropy at the lower layers, which translates into the elimination of national (and ultimately personal) sovereignty.
Higher-level complexity requires lower-level simplicity. The larger and more powerful a nation state becomes, the more specialised (less free) its citizens must therefore be, so choose where you want to be on the spectrum and seek that outcome. (Why I chose the name Mediocritas - the State can be a good thing, in moderation).
Bringing this back to Gail's article. These realities of complex systems inform the analysis of energy in society and make it obvious that collapse of complex nation states absolutely IS strongly driven by energy scarcity. A larger population and more technological progress increases societal entropy, meaning a larger amount of energy is needed to maintain state. The essential measure is therefore: available energy per capita in light of technological progress. It really is that simple. When this number falls due to higher population, falling energy extraction, more technological development, or a combination of these factors, then it will not be possible to maintain societal state.
The role of debt is largely irrelevant. It merely serves to make the transition between states easier, but it does not change the probability of any particular state occurring (unlike energy). Debt can threaten to break down a particular state by lubricating the motion of an agent of change, but it can just as easily be utilised to revert back to that state again. Debt has never been, nor will it ever be, equal to energy.
Our future of declining available energy per capita and (hopefully) increasing science and technology, will lead to the collapse of our high-level governments. They will try to survive (pointlessly), leading to war. A better course to chart for the future would be to voluntarily and peacefully break up our largest nations into many smaller nations. This is something I have always advocated for and recently it seems that the vibe at ZH is aligning with. It is the polar opposite of the George Soros view held by the current ruling class.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-2 ... ng-answers
http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp