How about artificially low interest rates? An interest rate is exactly the coordination between risk and time, with a low interest rate you're subsidizing stupidity and wastefulness, and with its concommittant inflation you're forcing people into making those investments to stay afloat.
Maybe if we weren't goosing the interest rate lower for "growth" we wouldn't be destroying the environment.
But I guess it is hard to get someone who works for an organization like the UN, who is predisposed to meddle, to see that the problem is meddling, and not that the solution is more meddling.
Are you not aware of the concept of externalities? How do you, for example, explain the fact that leaded gasoline was only replaced with non-leaded gasoline when "meddling" made it illegal?
The official policy position is that the free market won't gamble enough if left alone and that it needs to be forced away from conservative plays. We must admit that this is, potentially, a contributing factor to the lack of responsible long term thinking in markets that are influenced by money (hedging in case there are aspects of life that aren't influenced by low interest rates, if someone spots any let me know).
Plus printing money and handing it out to rich people is outrageous. I'm confused at how anyone is can pretend that is a good idea. You didn't say that, I'm just throwing it out there Carthago delenda est style)
The irony is that you're falling victim to exactly this phenomenon: I claim that meddling in one form is bad and you pull out a knee-jerk argument with a buzzword (externalities) that injects a misinterpretation of the logic in the argument. When you are predisposed to meddle, you put up barriers to understanding my argument.
Anyways, my point is exactly that central banking makes blindness to externalities worse.
Freon would be a much more interesting example as it hurts societies in the long-term and not individuals in the short.
I do however fully support reasonable regulations (consequences for externalities), building infrastructure, universal aid and healthcare programs, etc.
Basically bad decisions like over borrowing, and bad lending, should be punished (not bailed out or you encourage bad decisions). Financial decisions that shift cost to others (externalities like dumping chemicals into a river) should also be punished. At the same time a safety net can be developed (cheap housing, food, or even UBI) to prevent the most devastating individual consequences (especially those you may not even be responsible for). That’s my ideal at least.
Ah…age-old gaslight tactic. Using words like “everything” “all” “any” to encapsulate your opponents argument then using a non-sequitor counter-point (leaded gasoline) to argue a tangent point (a point not relating to interest rates).
Growth in both those countries was due to them opening up economies to internal and external entrepreneurialism and capital.
The entire concept of interest is a human-designed concept (one that some cultures actively reject). To say that interest rates are being “meddled” with is just basically saying “one group of humans is doing one thing that disagrees with how another group of humans do it”
I’d argue that humans in general are awful at understanding time values and interest is a very incomplete solution to that problem. Making that incomplete solution marginally better isn’t going to get us anywhere.
Shame is, I don’t have any better ideas.
During the 1880-1950 we were causing massive disasters all around, literally nuking cities. But that period is also where we came up with virtually all of technology that makes the modern world: cars, planes, radio, computers, nuclear power, jet propulsion.
Since then (also ~70 years) we have maintained a little momentum here and there. Jet propulsion gave us space travel and satellites, we linked computer into networks, put them on the radio. Otherwise, it has been a time of stagnation.
This managerial approach to risk management is in no small part to blame in my opinion. We should be bolder. This may be worse for individual people affected but better for humanity in general as it gives us tools to address truly existential risks (like a stray asteroid).
We can't really make it up to the people affected in another managerial/coasian bargain. So in return, as healthy cultures did throughout the ages, we give our heroes glory.
EDIT: I also forgot to mention globalization, where optimism resulted in the supply chain crisis of 2020-2021 and inability of the West to impose full oil and gas embargo on Russia.
However, progress in IT, in bits, while fine and useful, is simply not as powerful as progress in more basic industries, in atoms. Having the means to (over)feed seven billion people (1940s tech spread around the world) is more important than having the means to (mis)inform seven billion people (1980s tech spread around the world).
The linked article seems quite focused on disaster risk, which in terms of its increase is mostly climate-related.
The perceived reduction in progress over decades may have more to do with societal changes in individual risk perception. For example, we were more comfortable with people dying in the name of progress in 1880-1950.
What is your concrete suggestion for taking more risks? Surely not nuking more cities? Having more world wars? Shall we declare war on Russia and send troops to Ukraine? Would that create more "progress"?
> Otherwise, it has been a time of stagnation.
How so? To take one example: we had a killer virus come out of nowhere, but we were able to develop effective vaccines for the virus almost immediately. The "slow" part was just the safety testing, not the vaccine development. Would this have been possible during the 1880-1950 era? Science and technology continues rapidly; I'm quite puzzled by the stagnation comment.
In 2022, we all have computers in our pockets that are vastly more powerful than anything from 1950, and we can use these pocket computers to instantly communicate with anyone on the planet.
> Having more world wars? Shall we declare war on Russia and send troops to Ukraine? Would that create more "progress"?
War driving technology forward is a pretty popular idea; it's plausible that if modern society survived WWIII it would create more progress... for the survivors.
Nearly all disasters are foreseeable and mitigable. We will do better if we prepare ahead of time. Investing a comparatively small amount of resources will have returns down the line - but you have to do the investment and plan accordingly. A laser focus on investing all resources in "progress" will end up forseeably disrupted.
[1] The work of Scott Gabriel Knowles is probably a good intro if people are not familiar.
But the "monsters" are things like floods, wildfires, tsunamis, etc.
> the Hazard Definition and Classification Review, ... outlined over 300 hazard types that can contribute to disasters (UNDRR, 2020a). They include common events such as storms and floods and also less-frequent events such as pandemics and chemical accidents.
https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-d...
And the giant robots are things like better communication, insurance, and paying a little attention.
Optimism? I'd say it's apathy. Doomsday reports, also very correct and alarming ones, have lost their effect. People have become numb, pessimistic and just assume or even accept that everything is going to shit. They feel powerless to do anything about it, or are too occupied with their own economic relevance.
As for climate change, the only way that ends is after massive death and destruction or due to economics (specifically: carbon emission sources get replaced because they're cheaper). It's too large, expensive and long-term for people to care otherwise. The pandemic should've dispelled any notions you may have had about humanity not being staggeringly selfish.
The social and political disasters are more solvable. The world powers (and the US in particular) need to stop screwing with the rest of the world purely for their material gain.
The US loves to sanction, incite a revolution or just outright invade any country that even talks about (let alone actually) nationalizes natural resources [2]. Cuba and Venezuela spring to mind. In Ecuador after Chevron caused massive environmental damage and the government secured a $9.5 billion judgement, the US reacted by empowering an oil law firm to criminally prosecute the US lawyer (Steven Donziger) for fraud in the US [3].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6E156F1A50BB7B72
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
[3]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/04/science/mcgovern-call...
On 9/11 ~3500 people died. During the pandemic that many people were dying of Covid every day. In 2 years over 1 million Americans have died of Covid. 9/11 sparked 20 years of wars (that we lost) and trillions of dollars gone, not to mention the hundreds of thousands or millions we killed directly or indirectly in the process.
But the pandemic response? Slave muzzles [1] and an incredibly safe vaccine could've saved millions of people worldwide. Minor inconvenience, basically.
I mean look at how people are upset how gas is more expensive now. Do you really think people collectively will subject themselves to something similar long-term so decades from now the Earth might be slightly cooler than it's otherwise going to be? No shot.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-qanon-rode-pandem...
Also, people need to understand the nature of the risk. Most risk profiles drawn up my mathematicians/statisticians are delibarately very boolean in their outcome. This is to remove potential biases and in order to understand if something will happen you need the following: A(chance something will happen) x B(chance that is bad) = P(death)
This in almost all situations means that P(A) is not the same as P(death) because P(A) will include everything from a stubbed toe or sneeze to death. Conversely P(B) is also no P(death) as it's derrived from the subset of people who pass the condition of P(A) happening which is by definition <=1.0...
And now that I've introduced something involving stats on the internet the trogledites will chery pick and straw man this into oblivion, but please, pick up a text book once in a while and stop clicking on the dailymail...
The most fatal expression I have heard is that "We need to push through".
In Digital Vegan I describe this mentality thus:
"I feel there is more hope that one can survive a car crash by
accelerating at a wall to more cleanly demolish it. Instead we must
learn the self-discipline and endure the pain of being able to
disconnect first, in order to build new connections." [2]
Surely I am an idiot, but I remain an optimist that human beings can pull ourselves out of a great collective delusion built on pride and greed.
For example; the GAR2022 statement perfectly describes the state of cybersecurity. I recall a point around 2019, before the pandemic when major breaches and incidents got to occurring once per day. I had a feeling that the world was finally taking notice and something could now be done. Then suddenly it vanished from the news cycle. When something is happening daily, it's no longer news. Covid-19 then eclipsed all threads of reflection and we plunged deeper into the very forms of cybernetic technofascism and blind dependency we needed to avoid.
It's now become impossible to research or teach anything but the most cartoon version of computer security - one that holds the established mythologies harmless and allows profitable abuses to continue. There is no permitted narrative that doesn't compound the errors we are already making [1] for the sake of those who have power. There is too much resting on not comprehending the big picture and finding human-centred solutions. A generation of smart young people who could help us are left frustrated.
I think similar things are happening in other areas of human intellectual endeavour now, climate, transport, health, education. We have not valued competencies, but instead put prideful appearance before reality. We have a bleak crisis of leadership. We cannot face the onslaught of challenges by reason alone as we are all fatigued already by tyranny, pestilence, looming poverty and war.
The first step is "When you're in a hole, stop digging".
We need to curb enthusiasm and withdraw support, even tacit, for many of the "sacred" norms. We must reject monotonism and the idea that progress is a "inevitable" scalar. That is not a rejection of technology, or neo-Luddism. Computer people should at least recognise that it is called "back-tracking".
[1] http://techrights.org/2021/11/29/teaching-cybersecurity/
OT: But may i ask if you (reminding me on a fictive guy named "Baron von Münchhausen") do you mean 'optimistic' in terms of: 'You not only have to consume the advertising, feel invited to make our next ads better, write cheering feedback, get in touch with our company ! (without any surplus for you, sorry!)' Than...than ...yes than, i am sure -you became an "'I did it'-people" ?.... P-:
[1] https://pat-kane-xcjl.squarespace.com/dailyalternative/2021/...
More governance, more/better management of risk by the UN that is then delegated to its administrative regions (the US, EU, etc). This is because as long as we are talking about risk, this plays into the hands of a global governance structure. All risks should be planned for and managed - I mean the covid response was fantastic, right? What was wrong was not enough governance, of course.
But what about the risk of a corrupt global governance structure? If you think "democracy" was bad (where you vote once every 4/5 years, for someone else to represent you for that time), how much worse will it be if global policies are rolled out to everyone with no vote at all? Where if you disagree on what stakeholders (corporations, government and NGOs) have in mind for you, you're on your own. Which is where we are already..
No to a global tyrannical system - thanks. Next.
I think the best way to manage risks is to roll back the mega governance structures, ignore or undo government diktats. Put power in hands of local people, and no I don't mean implementing the UN cookie-cut 'local sustainable development plan' templates that we are all getting. Can we discuss that? Of course not - imagine a government arguing for less government!!
I want less government in every way - let local people decide for themselves what they want to do. In fact, we could have that today, if people stopped listening to these ridiculous self-authorising "authorities".
- use leaded petrol
- build fridges using HCFCs
- burn trash
This stuff had to be forbidden by the government to make it stop. The UN might be some corrupt stuff, but the point of reducing government at all is nonsense. People on their own won't stop doing harmful things if they dont suffer the consequences themself.
And not to mention the politics of rich countries sending soldiers into poor countries to enforce rules. Colonialism 2.0. "It's the developed world's obligations to drag the uncivilized nations into the the 21st century"?
Sounds familiar.
Governments built the roads - other solutions are conceivable. Tax payers paid once for the roads to be built, and are now paying for roads to made unusable for cars (lane restrictions, pedestrianisation, etc). That's a waste.
Did you know that electric cars were very popular 100 years ago - but because of the oil industry + government, they were quashed?
Government waves through unacceptable, unenvironmental behaviour by corporations. However, it does want the consumer who bought the fridges, to foot the bill! Consumers are ignorant of course of the unenvironmental impact of the products they were being sold - that's what government was ostensibly there for - all those agencies were meant to assure that we were getting decent products.
It hasn't worked as we thought - but it has worked out as corporations planned.
A bigger governance system is not the answer.
How do we solve big, global problems like climate change, pollution, ecosystem collapse, pandemic prevention, food/water precarity, etc if everywhere is just local people deciding for themselves?
Have you heard of the Collective Action Problem [1]? Its basically why we have governments. Now think about about the scale of the problems we face right now: what systems do we need to address them?
Have you considered that local people might decide to form tribes, arm themselves with weapons, kill a bunch of people, and impose their own new government by force?
This is what often, perhaps inevitably, happens when there's a power vacuum.
The United Nations was formed in the aftermath of World War II, during which local people decided what they wanted to do was invade other countries and commit mass murder.
"If government just gets out of the way, then everyone will play together nicely and peacefully" is never how it works.
The key is to maintain a healthy balance between government and personal freedom. It's a difficult balance to maintain, but the alternatives — authoritarianism or anarchy — are always worse.
Perhaps my schooling overlooked some detail of this era, but I had been under the impression that there was at least one megalomaniac fascist dictator involved in the instigation of that process.
Why is that a good thing? Who gets the power when voters lose it? Who gets to say what happens, when we can't all decide together?
What's your opinion on unions?
In fact, that 'argument' is already resolved - we are moving forward with what I think is fascism - government + corporations working together.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." - Nietzsche.
I prefer this as:
The governance structure, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, government, am the people."
And yea, I know they releasased a "plan" showing how they would split the 6 billion to different areas and stop world hunger 2022. Amazing work!
The UN isn't perfect but it sure as hell better than no communication between countries at all.
Elon Musk is insignificant compared to that, "I stopped respecting the biggest world forum when they criticised an egomaniac entrepreneur" jeez...
> Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at the UN don't solve problems, if they were solved, their jobs would be purposeless.
Does it occurs to you that some problems can't be solved but only mitigated ? it's like saying covid lockdowns and vaccines were useless because "hey look, not so many people died in the end". The UN have done more to the world than Musk or any other single individual will ever do. It's not perfect, it's inefficient, it's expensive, it's still the best we can do. What do you imagine ? The UN work for 15 years, solve all of the world problems and retire ? The world is constantly evolving, it's not so hard to grasp
I think the idea WFP promised to "solve world hunger" for $6bn originated with Musk or his fans, not with WFP. WFP's original claim was that they'd be able to prevent 42 million people from starving (a much more achievable goal). I'm struggling to find the original interview rather than dramatized reports of it, though.
Disclosure: I've done contract work for WFP.
He said he'd sell $6bn of Tesla stock and donate it if they could provide an open source plan to completely solve world hunger.
They said they'd written a private plan to reduce world hunger then criticised him for not making the donation.
Whatever you think of Elon, I don't think he acted in bad faith here.
As an agent in the market, if you correctly model tail risk you will still be out-competed by someone who does not model tail risk, since they can allocate resources somewhere other than tail risk mitigation. Given non-catastrophic events, this ends up being okay for the market system. After all, society doesn't care if Google is the search engine or Bing so long as they provide similar functionality.
For catastrophic events, though, we'd like to keep things operational rather than have someone else pop in. But that's okay. I think the right model is that the state steps in for true catastrophes and mitigates the effects (like we did in the pandemic).
And, to be honest, I don't see climate change as an extinction level risk. A few hundred million will die in the top end of what we expect, but that's acceptable. And this is clearly the position of most people, so I'm comfortably in the majority here.
Citation, please? I'd love to see the polls saying that several hundred million deaths are ok with most people.
From what I've seen, increased government action on climate change polls very well among the public, e.g., https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
By the way, I’ll vote you out if gas becomes expensive, but make sure you do something about the climate change. I won’t vote you out over Climate Change or anything. But it is very important. Gas prices, in comparison, are not at all important. I’ll vote you out over them, but they’re not important.
Just make sure you get the climate change thing right. Won’t win you my vote or anything but it is the most important thing in the world. Nothing is more important.
Now is a good time to talk about incentives. If you are the 'UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction' you have to find disasters or disband.
I call that the classic fallacy of the building contractor who think it's mix of quick actions and tolerance in the tech can do anything and scale to any level. The opposite effect of analyze-paralyze.
Beside that, the recent autarkic drive fueled much by the neoliberals need of overturn the table to remain in power against emerging powers that in the end use the same techniques in slightly different sauces BUT do have industries and/or natural resources the west have lost, is not a reversal of globalization is just the need for another cyclic world war to reset an unsustainable system avoid being rightly annihilated by a mass of angry people, the need for resource and the global exchange system is still the same. For anybody.
Maybe we ve proven to be good at preventing the wrong things. People expected a climate disaster but it was a pandemic instead
We are on the brink of world war three and the UN's only reason for existing is to prevent that from happening again, but instead of doing its job it's playing propaganda games with the word 'disaster' to make you think a global carbon tax is the solution to all of your problems (even though deaths from natural disasters are at all-time lows: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters).
We've got major inflationary pressures triggered from man-made economic policy decisions compounded by the incredibly disastrous decision to attempt to shut down whole economies in the vain attempt to prevent human beings from breathing in the same air space as each other. That was a disaster. We are still living with the chain reaction of that stupidity, and China is still running with it in Shanghai, maybe because power is kinda addictive, even when it's horribly disastrous, I don't know.
The last thing we need is more centralization of power vis-a-vis the UN.
What do you think the UN is supposed to do when one of the permanent members of the Security Council with veto power decides to go to war?
The foundation of the UN depended crucially on the temporary alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union during World War II. This alliance quickly fell apart though, leading to the long "Cold War", which arguably still exists, apart from a short lull in the 1990s. When the US and Russia are at odds, it's almost impossible for the UN to perform its function. The veto power of the permanent Security Council members ensures that the UN has no enforcement mechanism over those individual nations. This was by design of the founding nations: the United States and Soviet Union never gave the United Nations the power to constrain the United States and Soviet Union.
Having said that, World War III not inevitable. There were only 20 years between WW1 and WW2, while we've gone more than 75 years since WW2, so maybe the UN has done its job?
Unfortunately reality of exponential growth of easily transmitable virus like COVID-19 (recorded cases where infection happened due to sharing common sewage main) is that if you don't keep it contained early on, you're fucked.
If you think that delay is bad wait and see if a pandemic develops in Yemen or in Sub-Saharan Africa...those countries would need 8-9 months to notice an outbreak not to mention sequencing.
We have an example with HIV. It made the leap somewhere in Africa between 1945 and 1952. The world noticed it when it arrived to developed countries in the 1980s...
Hatred against China is cheap talk, when it's time to discuss the quality of life haircut that a complete decoupling would cause all of a sudden each and every person (be it a professor, a dude at the bar or anybody else) is only looking for an off-ramp to get off the conversation and blame Davos/Schwab/the illuminati. This is true in NYC as well as Shanghai