boilingfrog
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This might be obvious to many others, but I’m new to this thinking… I have really been spending a lot of time thinking about the whole idea of “economical” energy entering into a system at the bottom, and the amount of energy relative to the level of complexity that a system can support (lion-eating tuna fish, what an image!).
I hear all these “ads” from the local university lauding their work in “nano-technology”, and “genomic medicine”. I was always suspicious, but this “energy” thinking kind of gives me some structure to apply.
However, I’m hoping that someone can take a moment to give me some direction on why financialization of a society is one of the highest forms of complexity. I actually buy that idea on faith, but can’t seem to get from a-to-f… anyone?
(If finance is a leading indicator, and also supplies the lifeblood of our systems, it would seem to be a brilliant thought to add fast/slow financial crack-up as a parameter).
Thanks in advance.
Writings like this are why I have been reading S/I (Stoneleigh/Ilargi) since The Oil Drum. I don’t seem to have the mental horsepower to pull such a wide variety of “learnings” together so cohesively, but think I have enough to appreciate those who can…
Living down here where we go “Deerhunting With Jesus” (RIP Mr. Bageant), the beneficiaries of the system are living in very close proximity to those at the bottom. My work allows me to interact with both sides at length, see into both worlds, as it were. From what I see/hear, the folks on the bottom are much more in “tune” with the prevailing winds than the folks on the top.
In thinking about the previous thread of conversation, especially that “triggered” by Cory, I do like the way that S/I articulate their big picture, including surmises at steps and phases. I try to approach it like the scientific method: make a hypothesis and then look at the data. (It’s that “picking and choosing” of data that really gets tough). Reading the various news sources, watching for clues in the world around me (while monitoring my personal filter)… are they reinforcing the hypothesis? Contradicting? Making modification necessary? I have yet to find another hypothesis so clearly articulated, and still so solid five years on.
Any other readers out there comparing “facts” to the hypothesis?
I like James’ last line… “If people are encouraged to think in systemic terms, they can’t be baffled by [the bafflers].”
Once again, the “timing” issue. It has cost me, as well. No one expected the lengths to which they have gone (e.g. QE), but now it’s pretty clear that there are no limits. I have switched to viewing it like a melting polar ice cap – we’ll see steady melting, occasionally a big berg will calve off, and then back to the steady melt. Everyday a struggle to find balance between that inevitability/eventuality, and “today”.
