hi folks,
if you haven't seen this essay, I offer it as a useful reference:
http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/
the author focuses on the production and population systems (the infrastructure layer of the harris model). changes to the structure and superstructure systems are not addressed in any significant way J
the structure systems support the infrastructure; the superstructure systems support the structure systems. but the upper layer systems are constrained by the infrastructure - you must have a solution there that fits reality - and that requires engineering, not political and ideological nonsense.
for detail on the harris model:
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Harris/Presentation/Harris.pdf
note the decision matrix used for cultural selection. it must be consistent with the infrastructure solution J
have fun, biz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
yes, a steady state solution must have a zero growth production and population system. as the paper suggests, any level of compounding only changes the time frame to terminal failure. the level of production and population is determined by the sustainable carrying capacity of the production system within the environment. so far, our species has tried just a few production systems: horticulture, agriculture, industrialism and now hyper-industrialism (per harris).
a variety of forms of structure and superstructure systems (political economy, domestic economy, behavioral symbolic systems, mental symbolic systems) are possible, but only the forms that will support a sustainable infrastructure solution will 'work'. so a culture has to find a sustainable production system first, determine the carrying capacity it affords, determine the population level that matches that carrying capacity, then design the structure and superstructure systems that will enable a stable state in the infrastructure.
you can't start with the superstructure or structure system first, then worry about the infrastructure. economics, politics and ideologies address different variable sets - you can't define the problem domain of a production system and environment with them - so you can't get a solution from them. daly's insight about including the environment as a variable in the economic problem domain is useful - but it doesn’t address the problem of the infrastructure system solution.
have fun, biz
here is the detail on koonin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin
do you think his credentials match up to anderson's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Anderson_(scientist)
have fun, biz
From: steady...@googlegroups.com [mailto:steady...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ishi Crew
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 10:19 AM
To: steady...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: using the harris model to design a sustainable culture
its quite nice you brought up koonin (nyu, cal tech, mit , wsj, spencer, lindzen, curry). i guess you have to dig up the dregs of the dregs (u have to go through the mud to get the pearls---except you don't).. (supposedly koonin has a phD in physics---but if u know about that sometimes or more often its just a pay for play). obviously he hasnt done any thing in that area for years apart from s-king up to NYU. have (no (iggy, sp's)) fun---i gather your hero m crichton (harvard) has decided to contribute to a steady state. glad to see u go.(its the biz modl---u gots to pay to play or leave immediately).
maybe when i stop down at jurrassic park we can recreate something like Him for the zoo.
On Friday, October 17, 2014 7:15:30 AM UTC-4, Biz Modl wrote:
yes, a steady state solution must have a zero growth production and population system. as the paper suggests, any level of compounding only changes the time frame to terminal failure. the level of production and population is determined by the sustainable carrying capacity of the production system within the environment. so far, our species has tried just a few production systems: horticulture, agriculture, industrialism and now hyper-industrialism (per harris).
a variety of forms of structure and superstructure systems (political economy, domestic economy, behavioral symbolic systems, mental symbolic systems) are possible, but only the forms that will support a sustainable infrastructure solution will 'work'. so a culture has to find a sustainable production system first, determine the carrying capacity it affords, determine the population level that matches that carrying capacity, then design the structure and superstructure systems that will enable a stable state in the infrastructure.
you can't start with the superstructure or structure system first, then worry about the infrastructure. economics, politics and ideologies address different variable sets - you can't define the problem domain of a production system and environment with them - so you can't get a solution from them. daly's insight about including the environment as a variable in the economic problem domain is useful - but it doesn’t address the problem of the infrastructure system solution.
have fun, biz
From: steady...@googlegroups.com [mailto:steady...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cole Thompson
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:30 PM
To: steady...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: using the harris model to design a sustainable culture
Thanks for this biz, I think I see the issues you point out: the math against infinite growth is straightforward (infrastructure stuff as Harris would call it). It's the upper layers, what makes societies change (or not) that is the challenge not addressed.
Well, I am awaiting my copy of "Our Kind" by Harris, so I will keep my fingers crossed that after reading that, I'll gain some tiny epiphanies about how our kind can actually do something about the math staring us in the face.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:59 AM, biz modl <biz...@gmail.com> wrote:
hi folks,
if you haven't seen this essay, I offer it as a useful reference:
http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/
the author focuses on the production and population systems (the infrastructure layer of the harris model). changes to the structure and superstructure systems are not addressed in any significant way J
the structure systems support the infrastructure; the superstructure systems support the structure systems. but the upper layer systems are constrained by the infrastructure - you must have a solution there that fits reality - and that requires engineering, not political and ideological nonsense.
for detail on the harris model:
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Harris/Presentation/Harris.pdf
note the decision matrix used for cultural selection. it must be consistent with the infrastructure solution J
have fun, biz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SteadyStaters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steadystater...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.