3 ms·

Maybe. But this is really an engineering problem. Albeit one we currently lack the tools to seriously tackle. It's ridiculous that politicians and not physici

Maybe. But this is really an engineering problem. Albeit one we currently lack the tools to seriously tackle. It's ridiculous that politicians and not physicists and complex systems theorists set policies in our society. We need to start viewing the economy like we view biology and understand on a deeper level the effects policies we put in place will have _before_ enacting them. Corporations are literally organisms and have agency. It's not rocket science - if bribery is legal and corps can improve their bottom line by changing the law they _will_. They must. Or a competitor will and put them out of business. Your politician _can't_ serve your interest, he has to keep being a politician first. The world is pretty scary right now - corporate interest is unchecked and in danger of fucking up our societies for good. This is how the world crumbles. Not with a bang or a whimper but by everyone 'just trying to get by'. Pitchforks people. Pitchforks.

luddaite 8y ago
I don't think replacing politicians with scientists and engineers is really the solution here. We will always need the interpersonal skills that politicians bring to the table. However, these politicians should really employ more scientists and engineers as advisers. Most of the nitty gritty policy is currently handled by aides. These aides should have more training in evidence-based policy.
- andbberger 8y ago
  I'm not suggesting replacing politicians with scientists. I am trying to motivate that policy making must be approached quantitatively, and that the calculus for doing so must be developed. Definitionally this will be done by scientists. Design the incentives right for politicians and watch as self-organization works its magic.
  - meiraleal 8y ago
    They are already defined, we have a lot of economics and politics theory. The problem is, the scientists, the engineers and the technical people in general don't like and don't study this kind of knowledge, because they think the politicians should be switched for technicians.
    - andbberger 8y ago
      That's not true. The comparison to biology is very literal here. We simply do not have the tools to really understand complex systems. This is where our physics fails us. We're great at predicting the behavior of systems with a small number of interacting degrees of freedom. But for systems with a huge number of interacting degrees of freedom (everything around you) we're hooped - the math is intractable to existing techniques. New approaches are required. There _are_ some overarching principles for complex systems (namely self-organization). But they have not been well-developed.
fossuser 8y ago
I think it's Moloch [1] - people behaving based on incentives of a system that nobody really controls and exists largely because of poor coordination. It isn't easy to fix because nobody has total power over the system in order to fix the bad incentives. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

luddaite 8y ago

I don't think replacing politicians with scientists and engineers is really the solution here. We will always need the interpersonal skills that politicians bring to the table. However, these politicians should really employ more scientists and engineers as advisers. Most of the nitty gritty policy is currently handled by aides. These aides should have more training in evidence-based policy.

andbberger 8y ago
I'm not suggesting replacing politicians with scientists. I am trying to motivate that policy making must be approached quantitatively, and that the calculus for doing so must be developed. Definitionally this will be done by scientists. Design the incentives right for politicians and watch as self-organization works its magic.
- meiraleal 8y ago
  They are already defined, we have a lot of economics and politics theory. The problem is, the scientists, the engineers and the technical people in general don't like and don't study this kind of knowledge, because they think the politicians should be switched for technicians.
  - andbberger 8y ago
    That's not true. The comparison to biology is very literal here. We simply do not have the tools to really understand complex systems. This is where our physics fails us. We're great at predicting the behavior of systems with a small number of interacting degrees of freedom. But for systems with a huge number of interacting degrees of freedom (everything around you) we're hooped - the math is intractable to existing techniques. New approaches are required. There _are_ some overarching principles for complex systems (namely self-organization). But they have not been well-developed.

fossuser 8y ago

I think it's Moloch [1] - people behaving based on incentives of a system that nobody really controls and exists largely because of poor coordination. It isn't easy to fix because nobody has total power over the system in order to fix the bad incentives. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/