CDC Whistleblower – austism and vaccination

Question of the Day ? 5 Jan, 2014? Autism – continued

The Big One: CDC whistleblower goes public Now

Looks like a signal emerged from the noise – a strong one!

Chalk up one more catastrophe to “market incentives” – reduce costs – increase profits – hide the evidence.

[followed by]

To a point you are correct.

There needs to be strong disincentives to cheating in any system.

And there remains a fundamental incentive issue in any market based system as automation makes real abundance possible – the whole systemic incentive structure actually fails, as it is incapable of dealing with zeros. It’s like early day computers where the operating system would simply give a “divide by zero error” and stop – except the economic system doesn’t stop – it just goes about destroying abundance and human values.

My point is simply a mathematical one in a sense, that within an economic system, which is a system based upon scarcity – there is no way to drop scarcity to zero and have a meaningful outcomes. The system cannot deal with the zeros or infinities that result – they don’t compute.

We need to step outside a market based set of values if we are to make sensible use of the abundance that automation can now generate for us. No market based system can deal with them. All market based systems must value such abundance at zero – which effectively incentivises their destruction.

[followed by]

Hi OM

I am talking about a system based upon universal respect for life and liberty, where all work required for survival is done by automated systems, and therefore all human effort is completely free – and at the choice of the individual human.
A system based on respect for people, for property, for ecosystems.
A system acknowledging the infinite creative potential of every human being.
A system acknowledging that every action has infinite downstream ripples of consequence, and we all need to make reasonable effort that the consequences of our actions do not adversely effect the life and freedom of others.

Such a world is not about exchange.
Such a world is about the gifts of creativity, love, joy, contribution that we each bring to it.
There is no need of exchange values.
All survival needs are met.

Exchange values are fundamentally restrictive on choice – fundamentally attached to slavery.
We have the potential to be free creative entities.
Any creation that is truly free is by definition a gift.
If it is not a gift, then it cannot truly be free!

This is not communism or socialism or fascism – it is beyond any such ism. It is free human creativity. True free choice!
Not freedom from consequence, and true free choice!

[followed by]

Hi OM

For me, it is a simple evolutionary step in a direction that is both logical and has many historical precedents.

And I get that it doesn’t look that way when one looks at it from within the belief structures of the system.

When one believes in the values of a market based system, then what I wrote does not seem to be in any sense an extrapolation from anything that exists – I can see how it might seem that way.

However, if one takes a purely systems view, and looks at how systems evolve, at the incentive structures (feedbacks, amplifiers, switches, integrators, etc) that exist in any system that makes those systems do what they do, then what I am saying is simply the next logical step in the evolution of the system that is life on this planet.

Remember – it is possible to charactise all major advances in evolution as the emergence of new levels of cooperative behaviour (stabilised by suitable attendant strategies of course).

For me, this is simply one more step on an infinite path.

[followed by]

On second reading – one point I would clarify in what you said.

From my perspective, all system evolve – but there is no directionality in orders of complexity in evolution. So systems may evolve to less complexity.
In this sense, evolution is something of a random walk through probability and possibility space, with the randomness influenced by the probabilities provided by the incentives of the particular environments that exist (environments in this sense including physical environment external to organisms, other organisms, an organisms own internal structure, the sets of behaviours available, sets of interpretive structures available, etc – ie environments in the very widest of possible senses).

[followed by]

Hi OM

What I keep saying is that it is “market values” that are the major systemic risk.

What I mean by this is that all people adopt values – things that we take as being valuable.
Initially we all do this by adopting the value sets of the cultures we happen to be born into.
Then for everyone there is an evolution (and for me evolution as a term does not imply increasing anything {complexity or otherwise}, it simply means the process of change by which systems respond to the systemic incentives present at various levels) of values. In part, that process of evolution involves expanding levels of awareness, and increasing domains of choice, but there is no requirement for any particular individual to move to greater complexity – it is simply that the possibility of such increasing complexity exists, as development in any one level increases the probability of the emergence of the next available level (which process seems logically to be potentially infinite).

When people adopt the values of markets (which values are most commonly expressed in terms of money), most do so unconsciously. Those values are so much part of the fabric of our society that, for the most part, most people are not even aware of them. They are implicit in concepts like capital, price, and any time we give a monetary value to anything.
For me, it is interesting how those values are created (from a systems perspective) – what they mean in terms of systems and systemic incentive structures and resulting probability functions.

And I have been viewing the world from this systems perspective for over 50 years now. And there are many levels to the perspective I have as a result.

So from a systems perspective – when individuals adopt a set of values that are based upon markets (at whatever level of abstraction) there are certain necessary incentive structures that come with that.

Those necessary incentive structures produce probabilistic pressures towards certain systemic outcomes.

What I am saying, is that the adoption of such values, while it may seem in the short to medium term to be in one’s self interest, is actually, in the long term view, contrary to the self interest of every self aware individual.

The incentives of the market (any market) are to produce long term instability, and pose a constant threat to individual life and liberty at the systemic level.

At the systems level, individual liberty and security can only be empowered (long term) by the adoption of abundance based value sets, and market based values are of necessity based in scarcity – markets only make any logical sense in a domain of scarcity.

So it is in this sense, and this sense only, that I say that “markets” are the culprit. In the sense that we adopt the values of the market from our culture and few seriously question them.

Markets can certainly be a very useful tool where things are genuinely scarce, but if one allows market based values to dominate governance value sets then we will never deliver the universal abundance (and the security that comes with that) that is possible. It is in this systemic sense, and in this sense alone, that market values (and the markets that give rise to them) pose a grave and immediate existential risk to humanity.

[followed by]

Put most simply:
Human beings value an abundance of certain life sustaining essentials.
Markets value any abundance at zero.

That is a fundamental conflict with human values.

[followed by]

Hi OM

Many points of alignment (as expected 😉 ) and still some significant differences.

Right now I am on a boat (Arahura) crossing the Cook Strait, on the last part of the journey home about 4.5 hours to go), Jewelia snoozing in the seat opposite me.

re Point 1:
Meeting the survival needs of everyone is not designed to eliminate exchange values.
What it is designed to do is to give individuals real choice as to whether or not the engage in exchange systems. At present there is no real alternative to engaging in exchange transactions for most people to survive.
And example – the guy I stayed with last night. He is clear that he hates doing what he is paid to do, and would much rather spend his time creating music, but he cannot get enough money supporting his family doing that.
Most people are in similar situations.

Having all survival needs met allows people to “opt out”, it doesn’t require them to opt out. That distinction is important.

As to gifts, in my mind they are very different from exchange.
Most of what I do now is done as gift – on a “pay it forward” basis – and I still spend some time in the exchange world doing things for others to earn money – I am not free of that, though I am much freer than most.

Point 2 – dominance of exchange values in governance.

In my understanding, exchange values dominate governance because most people really do have survival need that need meeting and money is the currently dominant tool for doing so, by a significant margin (orders of magnitude).
Eliminating the dominance of survival needs allows other sets of values to emerge from the democratic process and mount a real challenge to exchange values (money/capital).
Actually, information is a far greater threat to the notion of capital, as people come to understand what it is, how it evolved, and how it works.

Your claim in point 3 that the “value set of markets and the value set of governance are related ONLY in an economy which is controlled by government” is not true.
When people have genuine survival needs that must be met, and the dominant method of meeting those survival needs is via the use of money, then the incentives of the market must dominate and governance system (it is only logical).
It is only when the survival needs of everyone are met that the political system is truly free to explore alternative value sets with the same intensity as we currently explore market based values.
The view I have is stepped back a couple of levels from markets themselves, and looks at the underlying incentive structures, and the likely strategic responses that are available in the nearby probability space of all available strategies.

The relationship between markets and governance that I am pointing to has no direct relationship to market kickbacks and special interest laws, though such things are certainly incentivised by the system. It is the incentive structures that result from thinking about things in market terms – by using ideas like money, market value, price, etc. The very use of such concepts imposes incentives and probabilities on the sort of things that will seem useful and possible and probable and valuable to those who are engaged in the highest levels of governance (political or corporate or otherwise).

Perhaps this response to your first post of 3 will help to remove the need for me to respond to the other two directly. If not – please let me know and I will respond (but not for a day or so).

Arohanui
Ted

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see www.tedhowardnz.com/money
This entry was posted in economics, Politics, Question of the Day, Technology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s