3 ms·

Maximising deprives others of the resource, optimising doesn't. I think that's the point being made. An economy that first maximised, then second optimised, wo

by mattdw 12y ago

Maximising deprives others of the resource, optimising doesn't. I think that's the point being made. An economy that first maximised, then second optimised, would beat an economy that first optimised, then second maximised, because the latter would have nowhere to expand. An economy that optimised and maximised would beat an economy that only optimised.

deciplex 12y ago
This doesn't take resource exhaustion into account. Which is to say, that by maximizing first and then optimizing, you may be only ensuring the extinction of our species, and the fact that your civilization will still be around when the lights go out will be cold comfort. I mean, this discussion is absurd, of course, since we seem to be operating under the assumption that the problem of how to do civilization can be solved with a half-dozen variables or so. But, even within that simplistic framework, the approach being laid out by you two is pretty daft IMO. How about, an economy that achieves hegemony, and then continuously optimizes, increases resource consumption as appropriate and only to the extent that such consumption is sustainable (over some reasonable planning horizon anyway), and seeks out and destroys rival upstart economies that are a threat to it (especially when they have an unsustainable model of resource consumption), will tend to be successful and stay successful.
- mattdw 12y ago
  I'm not saying that I wish that it were true, or that I think it's a good thing. I agree that it's daft. But over the short term, pillaging societies appear to beat conserving ones. And it's a fact that we do seem to be (as a species) adopting a short-term-profitable long-term-suicidal approach. (An interesting model is Norway's oil – they're maximising in the sense of getting all the oil out from under the sea, but they're stashing most of the profits away as a rainy-day fund, which puts the country on very secure footing for about the next hundred years or so. You might call that 'maximising without consuming', or 'camping'.) I think the future of the human race depends on finding a better answer to this whole question, but I think accepting that pillagers beat conservers in a lot of cases is a necessary step to finding something better. (I don't think we actually disagree; we seem to be arguing different points.)
- waps 12y ago
  > Which is to say, that by maximizing first and then optimizing, you may be only ensuring the extinction of our species, and the fact that your civilization will still be around when the lights go out will be cold comfort. Compared to not being around anymore before the lights go out ? I'd say that, yes, it's the more comfortable situation. But you're being dramatic, there's plently of places in nature where you can observe how this actually happens. It's almost never the case that resources fully run out, so some people/places will survive. And it may take tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but they will recover from that, as unlikely as that seems. Population explosion, like humans are experiencing now, is followed by ... a die-off. Not by an extinction. If humans are different, that will be the first exception to the rule in 4 billion years. > How about, an economy that achieves hegemony, ... and seeks out and destroys rival upstart economies that are a threat to it Of course the key here is that you attack BEFORE the other guys become a threat. Most species in fact do that, in combination with maximizing resource usage. In fact, that's what they use the resources for, to a large extent. Now there's plenty of economies currently around. Are you saying we should attack all of them right now ? Watch out, China ! Of course, if we don't, maximizing resource usage will be what "naturally" happens. Resource stewardship is a tactic that's trivially defeatable by a single bad actor, so that won't be what happens. One caveat does exist. This is a law like the second law of thermodynamics. On the whole, you can't avoid this, as that would be similar to creating a perpetuum mobile. But keep in mind that there is no such thing as a law that states nothing can remain in motion for a very, very long time. The longer the timeframe you look at in the future, the better the odds we'll be maximizing resource usage. But similar to perpetuum mobile, even relatively long-term exceptions can happen, and in fact, happen often (a big misunderstanding people have about large-scale random/chaotic processes : situations don't repeat and the future does not look like the past at all). But it will always come back to the rule. I wonder why we see this so much in political discussions. You think we have a choice. The only choice we really have is death now, or death later. You'll find that humans got were they are by choosing death later.

by mattdw 12y ago

deciplex 12y ago

This doesn't take resource exhaustion into account. Which is to say, that by maximizing first and then optimizing, you may be only ensuring the extinction of our species, and the fact that your civilization will still be around when the lights go out will be cold comfort. I mean, this discussion is absurd, of course, since we seem to be operating under the assumption that the problem of how to do civilization can be solved with a half-dozen variables or so. But, even within that simplistic framework, the approach being laid out by you two is pretty daft IMO. How about, an economy that achieves hegemony, and then continuously optimizes, increases resource consumption as appropriate and only to the extent that such consumption is sustainable (over some reasonable planning horizon anyway), and seeks out and destroys rival upstart economies that are a threat to it (especially when they have an unsustainable model of resource consumption), will tend to be successful and stay successful.

mattdw 12y ago
I'm not saying that I wish that it were true, or that I think it's a good thing. I agree that it's daft. But over the short term, pillaging societies appear to beat conserving ones. And it's a fact that we do seem to be (as a species) adopting a short-term-profitable long-term-suicidal approach. (An interesting model is Norway's oil – they're maximising in the sense of getting all the oil out from under the sea, but they're stashing most of the profits away as a rainy-day fund, which puts the country on very secure footing for about the next hundred years or so. You might call that 'maximising without consuming', or 'camping'.) I think the future of the human race depends on finding a better answer to this whole question, but I think accepting that pillagers beat conservers in a lot of cases is a necessary step to finding something better. (I don't think we actually disagree; we seem to be arguing different points.)
waps 12y ago
> Which is to say, that by maximizing first and then optimizing, you may be only ensuring the extinction of our species, and the fact that your civilization will still be around when the lights go out will be cold comfort. Compared to not being around anymore before the lights go out ? I'd say that, yes, it's the more comfortable situation. But you're being dramatic, there's plently of places in nature where you can observe how this actually happens. It's almost never the case that resources fully run out, so some people/places will survive. And it may take tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but they will recover from that, as unlikely as that seems. Population explosion, like humans are experiencing now, is followed by ... a die-off. Not by an extinction. If humans are different, that will be the first exception to the rule in 4 billion years. > How about, an economy that achieves hegemony, ... and seeks out and destroys rival upstart economies that are a threat to it Of course the key here is that you attack BEFORE the other guys become a threat. Most species in fact do that, in combination with maximizing resource usage. In fact, that's what they use the resources for, to a large extent. Now there's plenty of economies currently around. Are you saying we should attack all of them right now ? Watch out, China ! Of course, if we don't, maximizing resource usage will be what "naturally" happens. Resource stewardship is a tactic that's trivially defeatable by a single bad actor, so that won't be what happens. One caveat does exist. This is a law like the second law of thermodynamics. On the whole, you can't avoid this, as that would be similar to creating a perpetuum mobile. But keep in mind that there is no such thing as a law that states nothing can remain in motion for a very, very long time. The longer the timeframe you look at in the future, the better the odds we'll be maximizing resource usage. But similar to perpetuum mobile, even relatively long-term exceptions can happen, and in fact, happen often (a big misunderstanding people have about large-scale random/chaotic processes : situations don't repeat and the future does not look like the past at all). But it will always come back to the rule. I wonder why we see this so much in political discussions. You think we have a choice. The only choice we really have is death now, or death later. You'll find that humans got were they are by choosing death later.