ANG Cause of the month – Fisheries Management

ANG Cause of the Month – Fisheries Management

Hi Dale – thanks for that (I think?) 😉

I made a comment on my facebook page this morning, which both Dale and Deb noted.

Fisheries are really complex topics.

Scientists can spend their entire lives investigating the ecosystems present in a single drop of seawater.

The ocean has that peculiar property of the bigger the bit of it you look at, the more complex it is, both in terms of the physical and biological processes present.

Same goes for looking at changes over time.
You can see patterns that repeat on the scale of days, months, years, and any period longer than that.

We know of some species that vary on cycles of centuries, while others change without any discernible pattern over just a few days or weeks.

If you can think of a pattern, you can probably find an example of it somewhere in fisheries biology.

We humans tend to focus our attention of catching quite largish things, near the top end of the food chain. We can have quite an impact on those things, in several ways.

And we do seem to be generally improving the way we manage fisheries, and there is a constant tension between the economic imperative to meet this quarter’s profit target, and the long term needs of fisheries.

In New Zealand we put most of our major commercial species into a quota management system in 1986.
The first time I heard about that idea was when I met a visiting economist from the USA (Lee Anderson) in a pub in Wellington (our capital city) in 1980.
The more I thought about it, the more sensible it seemed, though it came with many sets of issues (most of which have surfaced).
So I was very active in the process of discussions that led up to the 1986 introduction. For the latter part of that period I was the Northern Regional Field Officer for the Federation of Commercial Fishermen, and spent a lot of time talking to different groups. I was also on the Primary Producers Council of the NZ Labour Party (who were in power for the last 2 years leading up to the introduction – so spent a lot of time talking to ministers and cabinet about the issues). So when Minister Colin Moyle required agreement of more than half of the people actually fishing, my going to those meetings was probably a big part of getting the system into being.

The quota system isn’t any sort of perfect solution, and it seemed to be (and has proven to be) a lot more effective than the alternatives.
Most of our stocks are in a positive state compared to where they were in 1980, and some still present us with profoundly complex issues that no one is prepared to touch.

To give one notable example – the Gisborne city are cray fishery.
This is what I call the “perfect storm” of fisheries management.

It had some particularly strong willed individuals present. One individual managed to convince a lot of people that there were a lot more fish there than there actually were. By itself that was an issue that could have been worked through, but there was more.

Cray fisheries tend to have highly variable recruitment. In good years there are lots of new animals, in bad years not very many. They are long lived, so normally have a large biomass of adults to smooth out those bumps.
But the adult biomass had been fished to very low levels.
Then there was a succession of years of poor recruitment.

About this time a new marine reserve was introduced.
The commercial fishers tried to get the government to buy out the fishers who fished in the area that was to become a reserve, but the treasury (already burned by earlier failures in the hoki and orange roughy fisheries) refused, and fought it through the courts.

So effort that was spread up the coast got concentrated near town.
Research done during years of reasonable recruitment showed that juveniles grew by an average of 2mm of tail width (the measure used) each year. So in a bad year, to separate conflict between commercial and recreational fishers, there was an agreement to allow commercial fishers to take fish 2mm smaller than the recreational take, but to do so in winter, before the spring moult and the summer recreational fishery.

Problem was, that when under stress, the animals don’t grow by 2mm, per moult, but average less than 1mm. So that meant that commercial fishers had preferential access to the fishery that amounted to over 90%. Understandably the recreational public became upset at their inability to catch a legal cray.

Department of conservation research that supported these facts did not support departmental dogma that marine reserves are always a positive influence on fisheries outcomes, so has been suppressed.
Neither Treasury nor the Department of Conservation are really interested in the facts becoming too public.

Add in another layer, which is that many of the Maori tribes from around that area did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi, and arguably have a case in international law that their rights of self governance have not been expunged. Quite understandably there is no appetite in government to go anywhere near that issue.

So commercial wont give up their concession (and why would they, they were screwed over by government).
Many individuals have simply decided that the rule of law is a sad joke, and just take a feed anyway (and who can blame them).

Fisheries department are faced with what amounts to civil disobedience on a scale that is essentially universal, and political demands that are impossible to meet – and cannot do anything about it – so they are held in contempt by just about everyone.

[Economic expendiency and false promises on the part of government leading to cascading failure at every level of social and ecological systems. A real “can of worms”.]

So for all the many successes (and many other problems) of our quota management system, we still have some serious issues.

And on the whole, taking a helicopter view, it is working.

And the idea that we can use markets to effectively measure value in a planning context cannot any longer be sustained.
Distribution is fine, provided everyone has income – so some sort of universal basic income is a necessary next step in the evolution of our economic and political systems.

But in the planning sense, anything universally abundant in a market must have a value of zero or less, yet most people as individuals value such universal abundance highly, and we are now developing technologies that allow us to deliver it. That is the critical issue facing humanity.

It is as real for fisheries as anywhere else.

Interesting times!

Posted in economics, Ideas, Nature, Our Future, Politics, understanding | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My Post on Radio Interview on NZ initiative report and fisheries generally [updated x2]

Comment on my own Facebook page

Last night I was contacted by NewsTalkZB and asked to comment on the report from the NZ Initiative.
I suggested to them that they ask someone from the NZ Sport Fishing Council to comment, and they still wanted to talk to me.
So this morning at 5:25 I had a short comment on the extremely complex issue of fisheries management.

It just highlighted to me the insanity of our present systems.

How can anyone break down the complexity of our current understanding of systems to a short sound bite?

I spoke of the need to consider fisheries as whole systems, and not treat species as independent of each other.

I spoke of the fact that if we took the largest recreational fishery in NZ (snapper) and split the 5,000 ton catch equally among the million or so people who go fishing, then it is 10 fish per year each. So we have to start to change the way we think about fishing.

I also spoke of the sea being the last bastion of freedom in NZ, and the unwillingness of people to lose that. And we have to show responsibility.

I mentioned that the report highlights the decline of blue cod in the Marlborough sounds, but says nothing about the increase in mussel farming over the same period. And the fact that in farming we talk about stock units and primary production, but in the ocean we don’t consider primary production, and we pretend that putting thousands of tons of a new animal in a space is not going to have any effect on the other animals already living there.

I am in my 12th term as president of the Kaikoura Boating Club. I tried to resign this year, but they gave me a life membership and elected me to the role again.

We looked at joining the Sport Fishing Council and I went to an AGM of the SFC a couple of years ago, and most of the talk was about line weights and trophies. That is fine, it is a perfectly valid set of things to talk about, but it is not something of interest to me, or of general interest to the members of the Kaikoura Boating Club that I represent. So the Sport Fishing Council isn’t a good fit for us.
[Added following a phone call from a friend who had misinterpreted what I wrote-] And again to be specifically clear, the Sport Fishing Council has the best representative structure in existence in this country at present. The SFC is also doing the best work currently in respect of consistent quality presentations to various fisheries forums on management issues. I don’t always agree, but then I rarely (read never) always agree with anyone. I have spent many hours working closely with Option 4 and Legasea, and have the greatest respect for the work they have done and continue to do.
So while SFC may not be a great fit for our club, it is the best democratic representative organisation in existence at present in NZ.[end of addition]

[Further added 6/8/17 – On further reflection, what actually happened at the SFC conference I attended was that there were some excellent presentations to the conference on Fisheries Management issues, by Scott McIndoe, Barry Torkington and Trish Rea. What concerned me wasn’t the levels of presentation – they were of the highest caliber, but rather the lack of discussion.
What I noticed was animated discussion about issues like line weights.
Perhaps that says more about my biases and preconceptions.
Perhaps my own obsessional interest in the depths of fisheries management issues, the biological, cultural, legal and systems aspects, led me to an unrealistic expectation that most others there would share something of that passion, and be interested in the profound uncertainties at the boundaries of all of those conjectures.]

Pre quake we had over 400 family memberships. Understandably that has dropped this year, and I expect it will return to that sort of level in a couple of years.
The NZ Recreational Fishing Council doesn’t have an active democratic structure at present.

I have had many years committed to creating solutions to the problems we face in fishing (both recreational and commercial), and I see the possibility of effective solutions on the longer term horizon, but not a lot in the short term.

What we have done here in Kaikoura, with the Te Korowai process, seems to offer the best model for progress. That model involves getting all interested parties sitting around the table and talking to each other, and finding solutions that everyone can live with that do seem to have a reasonable likelihood of actually working in the local situation. And that model takes time and requires active facilitation by a skilled facilitator and secretarial support.

And some issues are really difficult. I have been interested in all aspects of fishing for over 50 years, from the biology (from biochemistry up through the complex ecological relationships to the modeling and strategic understanding of populations and evolutionary systems) to the human side ( legal, cultural, behavioural, psychological, ethical, systems and processes), and for all of that I am very conscious that what I don’t know vastly exceeds what I do know, and there would not be very many who have a broader or deeper knowledge of the issues present.

I am committed to the ideas of valuing individual life and individual liberty, and that can only work inside contexts that are socially and ecologically responsible.
We are social animals.
We live in complex ecosystems.
We must be responsible for both of those realities if we want to continue to exist, and the idea of freedom is predicated on existence. Pretending anything less than that wont work.
Morality is necessary for the survival of life forms like us – the sort of complexity that we are requires that sort of set of boundaries for survival.

The incentives of our existing market based economic system make it very difficult to achieve any sort of stability.
Centralised control carries a great many dangers.

We are in very dangerous waters.

And the response to the earthquake here in Kaikoura has been heartening.
Most commercial and recreational fishers alike displayed responsible action in practice far more quickly than central bureaucracies. And all have managed to work together for what seems likely to be a close approximation to the best outcome possible.

So where we go from here is a difficult question.

The NZ Sport Fishing Council is currently the largest representative organisation in the country, and it only represents a small fraction.

We have lots of issues.
We need to manage all of our impacts on the marine environment – which includes both aquaculture and fishing, including fishing practices that massively disrupt seabed communities.
It also includes the land practices that impact the ocean, water quality, sediment runoff etc.
It also includes thinking about active enhancement (which we are doing with paua but little else).

Most people have too many other issues of importance to give much time to fisheries (me included).

The more we try and solve issues with systems and rules, the greater the likelihood of unintended consequences leading to far from optimal outcomes. The more centralised and formalised the systems the greater that danger is. Allowing a diversity of smaller responses (like Te Korowai) would seem to allow us to investigate multiple possible solutions simultaneous, and thus lower the risk profiles overall. Too few people understand much about effective management in complex environments. David Snowden’s Cynefin framework is one of the best introductions to a very complex topic that I have found. The logic is clear, that in complex systems fixed rules rarely deliver optimal outcomes, and responsibility needs to be devolved to those with the competencies to deal effectively with the situations they find. Flexibility is key to encouraging responsible outcomes.

It is a really difficult situation.

Interesting start to the day – and I haven’t even had breakfast yet.
SW wind started howling a few minutes ago.
Another day in paradise 😉

[followed by]

Hi Daren
My Dad had a saying that has stuck with me:
Never ascribe to intention that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
I have found it helpful.

Just to be clear – my comment about competence was not meant to be directed at the competence of anyone generally, but was rather meant to indicate that we all have our limits of competence and that we all go beyond them from time to time. When we do that, recognising it as such, and cleaning up any messes created, is an appropriate response.

[followed by]

Hi Daren,

I don’t see it that way.
Most people simply don’t want to deal with the real numbers.
The total productivity for Hapuku is around 2,200T. If we did a 50/50 split between rec and commercial that is about 1,100T rec catch per year.
Lets assume people want to catch a reasonable sized fish, not a yearling. So put a million people after a 5Kg fish (still a small hapuku), and we end up with one fish every 25 years each.
I’ve already caught my allocation for the next 10,000 years, and some of them very much larger than 5Kg.
The average fisher is not yet ready to accept that they can only take 2 hapuku in a 50 year fishing career. Yet that is what the numbers say.

Is it any wonder that there aren’t any left in close by the rocks???

It’s little short of a miracle that any are left anywhere. They are quite easy to catch, once you work out how to do it.

I have no doubt that it would have been a lot worse without the QMS.

And there is no shortage of problems with the QMS.

The QMS is not some sort of magic solution for every problem in fisheries.
It is a very blunt economic instrument that has worked remarkably well at curbing the worst excesses of the market incentives in fisheries management.

We have a lot more to do.
About that we strongly agree.

The QMS has a strong set of internal incentives to accumulate all quota into ever larger corporate entities. I think some in the select committee that I spoke to on that issue considered that a desirable feature, rather than a serious flaw.

I note in the US situation that they have hard aggregation limits of 2% on quota ownership – not our 30% with exceptions allowed.
They do at least pay some attention to the notion of competitive markets – rather than our situation of granting monopolies.
Not that I’m an all out fan of competitive markets – I much prefer cooperation, and it needs to be cooperation among some approximation to equals, with clearly enforceable penalties for any who cheat on the cooperative (at any level).

Posted in economics, Nature, Our Future, Philosophy, Politics, understanding | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evonomics – corruption

Bribery, Cooperation, and the Evolution of Prosocial Institutions

How the science of cooperation and cultural evolution will give us new tools in combating corruption.

This paper opens with three assertions that to me are all false:
“There is nothing natural [1] about democracy.
There is nothing natural about living in communities with complete strangers.
There is nothing natural about large-scale anonymous cooperation.”

Actually all of those things are completely “natural”, it just depends how one understands that term, and what sort of models are at base of what passes for “understanding” in any particular individual.

Some great aspects to the paper.
The references to Henrich’s work are great, as far as they go.

Understanding evolution is not simple, even though evolution is based in a really simple set of ideas.
Those simple ideas fold back on themselves, repeatedly, ongoingly, to create new levels of complexity.
Evolution selects across all levels of complexity present simultaneously.
Every level of complexity has its own levels of computational systems and strategy in action.
All aspects of reality seem founded in probability.
Aspects of complex systems are not predictable in any sense, for a potentially infinite class of reasons.
In terms of distributions of traits across populations, they are selected over all contexts encountered over time (with weightings varying due to frequency and severity – very rare events with very high selectivity can maintain traits that have small negative values in all other contexts).

Once one starts to understand that all emergent levels of complexity are based on new levels of cooperation, and that attendant sets of strategies are required to prevent cooperation being swamped by uncooperative “cheating” strategies, and one can distinguish up to 20 or so levels of cooperative systems present in human beings, then the levels of strategic complexity and interacting strategic environments start to make all the stuff written about and pointed to in this article look like kindergarten sketches of reality.

We are all vastly (many orders of magnitude) more complex than even the deepest of the articles referred to in this indicate.

We all, every one of us, face real existential level threat, from the failure of market based systems to be able to make reliable survival oriented decisions in the context of exponentially expanding abilities to fully automate the production of sets of goods and services.

Sure, we all need to understand the many very powerful ways in which markets have historically promoted individual life and individual liberty, through information sharing at many levels and through distributed governance at several levels, and various other levels of strategic systems.

And we need to see how exponential trends in technology (that are themselves critical to our survival) are impacting on the strategic utility of markets, and the abstract value measure of money, when used in a planning sense. It is dangerous having a value measure that delivers negatives for outcomes that are essential for the vast majority of humanity. We cannot survive that much longer. Terrorism is a “rational” response to such a situation (in a very real sense).

An in depth understanding of evolution can demonstrate how and why morality is an essential condition for the survival of complex cooperative entities like ourselves, and thus for the survival of our species.

All levels of complexity have boundary conditions necessary for their survival (just as cells need cell walls), and that applies at all levels of systems and abstraction (recurs to infinity).

Understanding that there really are systems out there that are both fundamentally and eternally unpredictable and pose existential level risks, and that we all need to be cooperative to have any reasonable probability of surviving them, is an essential starting point.

The logic of the above paragraph is applicable to all sapient entities, human and non-human, biological and non-biological.

Posted in economics, Ideas, understanding | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Overcoming ego continued

ANG – Overcoming Ego – continued

Continued discussion after a 4 year gap

Hi Mercale

Freud’s ideas of a three part system were a great advance on the ideas prevalent in academia at the time, and are woefully short of a modern understanding (which has something closer to 20 layers of computational systems embodied in human beings, with each layer having many instances and levels of strategy).

Jordan Peterson’s “Maps of Meaning” and “Personality” lecture series (available freely for viewing on youtube) are the best introduction to the topic from both psychological and evolutionary perspectives that I have yet found.
And there is much more to it than even Jordan hints at.

It is really difficult to even begin to get a glimpse of the levels of complexity and uncertainty present, when our biology and culture contain so many simplifying “hacks” that work well enough to allow us to survive, yet mask what seems to be really present if one makes the time and effort to step beyond them and look more deeply at the realms of logic and mathematics and science and their relationship to our experience of being.
I’ve been consciously doing that for over 50 years, and even now I feel something like the overwhelm present to a toddler in a library.

Your three actions ( Interrupt, Remind, Replace ) are great tools, and I would add two more – decontextualise and recontextualise.

Learn to see the implicit levels of context that influence the levels of probability to interpretation and action within us.

Once we have distinguished some of those (for it seems to be an eternal quest) learn to instantiate new contexts to alter the interpretations that our subconscious systems deliver. It is kind of like your “Replace” option, but at a meta level, and can be applied to as many of the 20 or so layers of systems within us as we are capable of distinguishing and influencing.

As one of my old teachers used to put it, the key is to be able to create a gap between impulse and action within which one can alter context.

And in practice, we are so complex, with so many systems, that the vast majority of them must always be simply doing what they do.
Recontextualising significant numbers of them is a task requiring decades.

And it does in fact seem that complex systems require a cooperative context to emerge (at higher levels that is something like Universal Love), and games theory is also clear that unless accompanied by ever evolving suites of attendant strategies to detect and effectively mitigate “cheating strategies” such cooperation is vulnerable to exploitation and ultimately destruction. At higher levels of awareness, such necessary sets of attendant strategies manifest as levels of morality (which is not to say that any moral system in existence is anything other than some sort of approximation to something effective).

It seems that we do need to accept the many levels of systems within us, and to do what we can to move those systems to the highest levels of cooperation we can instantiate, and nothing is without risk. Being as conscious as possible of the risks involved is step one to developing effective risk mitigation strategies.

Seeing beyond such simple notions as right and wrong, and into realms of infinite possibility, is a step on a path towards acceptance of infinite diversity.

It seems to me that respect for individual life and individual liberty must lead to an acceptance of responsibility in social and ecological contexts.
The naive view of freedom that says anything goes (which is what the post modernists seem to have taken to insane and dangerous extremes) is not compatible with a respect for either life or liberty applied universally.
All levels of complex systems require real boundaries.
Cells without cell walls are just ocean (they do not and cannot exist).
Cells require cell walls, and cell walls are amazing structures, in what they let in and out, both passively and actively, and how those functions change with context.
Similarly with every level of complexity, complex boundaries are necessary (boundaries that are too simple fail to support complexity).
At higher levels, morality is such a necessary set of boundary conditions for the survival of social cooperatives, and we are all ultimately individuals within social cooperatives.
Our individuality is important, and the reality of the social cooperative to our language, culture and survival is just as important.
Both aspects exist and must be acknowledged as such.

Placing individual whim over social cooperation is the extreme end of objectivist and libertarian schools of thought, that fail to give the social aspect of our being due weight.
Placing the social aspect over the individual aspect leads to the pathologies of the extremes of socialism that we saw instantiated in the communist Gulags and the Nazi concentration camps.

So yes – complex, interesting, constantly evolving with new levels constantly emerging, and with each new emergence consequences ripple through all other levels, requiring adjustments.
And at each new level, it is the evolutionary power of cooperation that empowers complexity (competition tends towards simplicity).

Posted in Philosophy, understanding | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Evonomics – complexity

Two Big Questions About the Job Guarantee: God, Devil, and the Details

Progressives have these questions. Others will too.

So many dimensions to the complexity of this question.

Aside from the one I continually raise, the idea that markets are based in scarcity and cannot give a positive value to any universal abundance that advanced automation delivers, there is another major problem here, and that is diversity.

Freedom will result in diversity.
All sorts of things result in diversity.

One simple example.
My wife and I organise things differently.
I organise by space. I can recall where things are, and where I put things.
Ailsa does not have 3D vision, the world occurs to her like 2D photos (which makes her a great photographer), so she organises things by colour.
There is something different about my colour vision. When I did the colour blindness test for my skipper’s ticket, I could see the several sets of numbers on every page with about equal clarity. I suspect I don’t see colours like most people do.
Whatever the causes, Ailsa just puts things whereever she sees a gap.
Anything that is more than 1cm from where it was is lost to me, and I start a systematic spatial scan to find it.
This is a constant source of conflict in our relationship.

It is an example in microcosm of the dimensionality of the difficulties present when there are multiple simultaneous sets of distinctions and interpretations present.

Often, there is no simple answer.
Often a degree of physical functional separation, and respect for those physical boundaries, is required.

Translate that into a work situation, and there is instant difficulty.
Work places tend to develop procedures and rules.
Those at the top of hierarchies tend to want the rules they are most comfortable with.
It doesn’t matter what set of rules or procedures it is, there will exist a wide spectrum within society as to how easily an individual can work within those rules.
For many, it will not be possible.
The individual may be totally committed to the outcome, yet psychologically unable to work within the set of rules and procedures of a specific organisation devoted to that outcome.

The issue for many in society is not simply finding work they see as valuable (that is relatively easy), but finding a group that achieves those values in ways that work for the particular particular physiological and psychological and skill sets present in that particular individual.

It is a very serious issue.
It is an issue I see clearly present in every individual I know.

There is not, nor can there be, any level of “one size fits all” solution to this issue; it is like a fractal system that recurs through every new level of system or structure present.

It requires active tolerance and acceptance of the need for diversity across all dimensions, which must involve respect for degrees of “personal space” across all sets of dimensions (including time).

So yes – the devil is very much in the detail.

Posted in economics, Our Future | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Automation in the information age

Posthuman Network – Automation post

Video – The rise of the machines

Automation in the Information Age is different.

True enough, but not deep enough.
The problem isn’t automation, it is how we measure value.
The use of markets made sense when most things were scarce.
In an age of the exponential expansion of automation, market values make no sense, as they necessarily value any universal abundance at zero.

How we deal with that will define our survival probabilities.

If we place the values of individual sapient life highest, followed by individual liberty, followed by the necessary derivative social and ecological responsibilities, then we can transition our money system by modifications like Universal Basic Income and a prohibition on positive interest rates, and we might just manage to create a cooperative path to security and longevity for all.

Any reliance on the idea that unrestrained markets are capable of delivering security is unlikely to end well for anyone. It is a logical nonsense in an age of fully automated systems.

So yes – it is different this time.

Yes it requires a response that is of an entirely new category.

And it can be, and needs to be, the most positive thing yet to happen for the security and freedom of sapient individuals (human and non-human, biological and non-biological).

That is not a logical possible outcome from within a market based competitive context. We have to start thinking and acting outside of that particular box if we want a significant probability of surviving.

Posted in Our Future, Philosophy, Politics, Technology, understanding | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ideapod – Tech-Solutions to our biggest social issues

Ideapod – Tech-Solutions

“How can we use technology to solve some of our biggest social issues, including:
financial inclusion
domestic violence
diversity & social inclusion in and out of the workforce

To be effective #techforacause must go deep.

Financial inclusion must be more than tinkering with competitive markets. To actually empower security and freedom it must be transformative. Creating fully automated production (machines capable of replicating themselves on command, and delivering a range of goods and services) removes value from markets, yet delivers value to individuals. Creating universal basic income, and removing the ability to charge interest, would deliver.

Domestic violence is really only a reflection of the violence imposed on society generally by our current economic and political systems. The technology above would make society as a whole much fairer. In such a society, where all public spaces are monitored and recorded, and all physical needs of people are guaranteed, standards of behaviour will rapidly improve.

Diversity and Inclusion will be empowered when people have the time and resources to learn and to create.

Cooperation is fundamental.

[followed by]

Many of our social ideologies seem driven by a very simplistic understanding of evolution.

Just as raw cooperation is vulnerable to destruction by cheating strategies and requires attendant strategies to detect and remove cheating, so raw competition is ultimately destructive, and cannot be found in nature.

In nature, any individual that becomes too competitive is ganged up on (in a cooperative fashion) by other members of the species and brought down.

Our society has become dominated by a simplistic understanding of evolution as competition in action. A deeper understanding of evolution demonstrates that all new levels of complexity are enabled by new levels of cooperation.
And the emergence of such levels requires a context where internal threats are as low as possible and less than external threats.

Right now, most people are threatened at many levels by the system itself.
That must change.

We have that ability, we just need to exercise it.

[followed by]

The default mode of thinking for humans is linear.

We now have exponential technologies available.
The difference is profound in the long term, though little different in the short term.
The first three terms of the simplest linear and exponential trends are 1,2,3 (linear) 1,2,4 (exponential).

However, by the time you get to the 40th term, the linear is 40, the exponential is over 1,000 billion.

A linear expansion of production on a 2 weekly basis has us producing 40 times as much at the end of 20 months.
An exponential expansion has us with 100 times as much for every person on the planet.

There are limits to amount of energy one can use on the planet without severely disrupting living systems.
Those limits do not apply in orbit, with mass coming from the far side of the moon.

There are necessary limits, but most of the limits constraining our thinking are not necessary limits.

Posted in Ideas, Technology, understanding | Tagged | Leave a comment