6 ms·

As noted by many of the other comments, this is a fascinating article in so many different respects, but the most interesting take-away for me personally is a l

by rosser 13y ago

As noted by many of the other comments, this is a fascinating article in so many different respects, but the most interesting take-away for me personally is a little detail that shows just how far the ripples cast from a seemingly small action can reach. If one day, decades ago, a teenaged boy's co-worker and friend hadn't wanted to live like "normal" folks instead of scroungers, and shared a sushi dinner with his friend, Dennis Rodman probably wouldn't have ended up visiting the DPRK decades later, causing all the resulting foofaraw. But for that one little choice, a subsequent event that at least flashed across the awareness of most of the First World, and who knows how much of the rest of it, wouldn't have happened. It's not necessarily something of geo-political consequence, but if that's not the notional "butterfly flapping its wings in China", I'm not sure what is.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
It's a wonderful life, isn't it? Personally I find complex systems of cause and effect to be inherently fascinating. We basically don't understand how they work, at least not in a rigorous way. People are working on models, for example in systems biology, but it's early work.
varjag 13y ago
In some way, the butterfly effect highlights that North Korea is in meta-stable state, and relatively minor events on few select people can effect its political course. In the modern world, much less is governed by outliers of chance, simply by virtue of many more agents involved.
- Retric 13y ago
  I suspect there where many minor changes that could have prevented any of the recent presidents from entering politics or at least running for president. Or more strangely Bush could have easily lost the an election with a minor change to the ballot design in a tiny area in a vary important state. Overall I suspect that's for more impact than who's making sushi in NK as I don't think most presidents would have gone back to Iraq for instance. And without the Iraq war I don't think we would have the backlash that lead to healthcare reform etc.
  - varjag 13y ago
    Yes, I'm not denying causality of real world, just saying random factors tend to exert less influence here. Taking America going to Iraq war, it might be a disturbing fact, but America wanted to go at war back then. The bloodlust of a common, red-blooded, mall-shopping American in the wake of 9/11 is the foremost reason the U.S. ended in two prolonged conflicts. Yes the reasons for Iraq were pulled from the hat, but the nation was eager to be deluded. Not a conspiracy of two men in DC: can anyone really imagine the USA not invading anyone after the 9/11 attacks? But again what's happening here is that in democracy, the influences become averaged with certain cut-off of extremes, like a signal through a band filter. The politics becomes statistical, as opposed to heuristic deal in feudal countries like North Korea, and as such becomes harder to disrupt.
    - Retric 13y ago
      I am not saying we would have avoid war with a different president, just that invading Iraq was a somewhat random choice and a different president would have probably just focused on Afghanistan.
    - dhimes 13y ago
      but the nation was eager to be deluded I don't think that's fair. We American citizens were told directly that Iraq had WMDs and an attack on us was imminent. If we were 'eager' for anything it was to stand together as a country. Most of us believed that the president had done due diligence (after all, he had access to intel that we didn't) and trusted him to do a competent job of analyzing the threat. We were wrong in that trust.
      - newbie12 13y ago
        This is false. Nobody claimed or believed an attack on the US was imminent (although another attack on Israel was a concern), the idea was that taking out Saddam could help stabilize the middle east. In official Washington it was well understood that WMDs were just an excuse/legal justification/foreign policy explanation for finishing the job begun in Iraq in 1992.
arh68 13y ago
Here's how I see it: either Fujimoto was predisposed to a sushi career (his sushi destiny guaranteed, though with uncertain timing) or Fujimoto would have been equally amazed by any old thing his rich friend showed him. There's also the whole question of: out of all the sushi chefs in Japan, why Fujimoto? But back to the dichotomy: I have no reason to believe Fujimoto was predestined for sushi. On the other hand, I would be shocked to know that the rich kid, though he couldn't have known at the time, held direct power over Fujimoto's future. What if the kid wanted to play soccer? Or play Pacman in an arcade? Or launch bottle rockets? Could Fujimoto have been equally good at those things?
foofaraw 13y ago
> foofaraw Ha! I never realized that was actually a word.
relix 13y ago
Apparently Fujimoto really liked sushi. Combine that with the fact that living in Japan, you're going to be able to eat sushi at some point in your life, it was only a matter of time until he found out he really liked sushi and wanted to become a sushi-chef. For all we know, there had been several "close calls" before this one, his parents maybe wanting to celebrate a special occasion with sushi, but then changing their minds. If his friend hadn't treated them, he would've probably had other opportunities to taste sushi and find out the same thing.

by rosser 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

It's a wonderful life, isn't it? Personally I find complex systems of cause and effect to be inherently fascinating. We basically don't understand how they work, at least not in a rigorous way. People are working on models, for example in systems biology, but it's early work.

varjag 13y ago

In some way, the butterfly effect highlights that North Korea is in meta-stable state, and relatively minor events on few select people can effect its political course. In the modern world, much less is governed by outliers of chance, simply by virtue of many more agents involved.

Retric 13y ago
I suspect there where many minor changes that could have prevented any of the recent presidents from entering politics or at least running for president. Or more strangely Bush could have easily lost the an election with a minor change to the ballot design in a tiny area in a vary important state. Overall I suspect that's for more impact than who's making sushi in NK as I don't think most presidents would have gone back to Iraq for instance. And without the Iraq war I don't think we would have the backlash that lead to healthcare reform etc.
- varjag 13y ago
  Yes, I'm not denying causality of real world, just saying random factors tend to exert less influence here. Taking America going to Iraq war, it might be a disturbing fact, but America wanted to go at war back then. The bloodlust of a common, red-blooded, mall-shopping American in the wake of 9/11 is the foremost reason the U.S. ended in two prolonged conflicts. Yes the reasons for Iraq were pulled from the hat, but the nation was eager to be deluded. Not a conspiracy of two men in DC: can anyone really imagine the USA not invading anyone after the 9/11 attacks? But again what's happening here is that in democracy, the influences become averaged with certain cut-off of extremes, like a signal through a band filter. The politics becomes statistical, as opposed to heuristic deal in feudal countries like North Korea, and as such becomes harder to disrupt.
  - Retric 13y ago
    I am not saying we would have avoid war with a different president, just that invading Iraq was a somewhat random choice and a different president would have probably just focused on Afghanistan.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    but the nation was eager to be deluded I don't think that's fair. We American citizens were told directly that Iraq had WMDs and an attack on us was imminent. If we were 'eager' for anything it was to stand together as a country. Most of us believed that the president had done due diligence (after all, he had access to intel that we didn't) and trusted him to do a competent job of analyzing the threat. We were wrong in that trust.
    - newbie12 13y ago
      This is false. Nobody claimed or believed an attack on the US was imminent (although another attack on Israel was a concern), the idea was that taking out Saddam could help stabilize the middle east. In official Washington it was well understood that WMDs were just an excuse/legal justification/foreign policy explanation for finishing the job begun in Iraq in 1992.

arh68 13y ago

Here's how I see it: either Fujimoto was predisposed to a sushi career (his sushi destiny guaranteed, though with uncertain timing) or Fujimoto would have been equally amazed by any old thing his rich friend showed him. There's also the whole question of: out of all the sushi chefs in Japan, why Fujimoto? But back to the dichotomy: I have no reason to believe Fujimoto was predestined for sushi. On the other hand, I would be shocked to know that the rich kid, though he couldn't have known at the time, held direct power over Fujimoto's future. What if the kid wanted to play soccer? Or play Pacman in an arcade? Or launch bottle rockets? Could Fujimoto have been equally good at those things?

foofaraw 13y ago

> foofaraw Ha! I never realized that was actually a word.

relix 13y ago

Apparently Fujimoto really liked sushi. Combine that with the fact that living in Japan, you're going to be able to eat sushi at some point in your life, it was only a matter of time until he found out he really liked sushi and wanted to become a sushi-chef. For all we know, there had been several "close calls" before this one, his parents maybe wanting to celebrate a special occasion with sushi, but then changing their minds. If his friend hadn't treated them, he would've probably had other opportunities to taste sushi and find out the same thing.