Recently President Obama announced that he supports gay marriage. But he also
said that if states want to continue discriminating against gays, it's their
decision. I assume the President also believes Abe Lincoln should have stayed
out of the slavery issue under the theory that the states should decide which
rights they grant their minority populations. (Someone clever said that before
I did. I forget who.)
Meanwhile, President Obama is using scarce federal funds to shut down marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized medical marijuana. On this issue, the President is opposed to states' rights.
The interesting thing about the dual issues of gay marriage and medical marijuana is that both have a track record that can be evaluated. Why not use science, or at least economics, to figure out what works?
In places where gay marriage has been legal for some time, what has been the cost to society? Has the social structure crumbled? Did taxes go up? Did any hetero Christians turn gay from peer pressure? Was there an outbreak of bestiality? Did it rain toads?
Medical marijuana has also been practiced long enough in some places to have a track record. Did the states that legalized medical marijuana experience an uptick in traffic deaths? Or did all of the stoners driving home from the dispensaries slow commute traffic and make things safer? Did residents eat too many munchies and become obese? Did cancer patients start robbing convenience stores to pay for their habit?
One could argue that the minimum requirement to be called a leader is that you don't wait for your Vice President to become so embarrassed by your position on a prominent national issue (gay marriage) that he takes control, forcing you to meekly follow. President Obama glibly said that Vice President Biden "got over his skis" when he came out in support of gay marriage. Actually, Biden displayed leadership. I understand why the President didn't recognize it.
On the Republican side, Romney is like a bag that's half snakes and half candy. When you put your hand in, you never know what you're getting. Romney might be awesome. I like the general idea of putting a turnaround expert in the oval office at a time when we need one. But the reality is that we don't know what we're getting with Romney. He is, after all, a robot that professes a deep belief in magic. Good luck predicting how that would shake out.
President Obama is getting a lot of credit for killing Bin Laden. But how much credit should we give to luck? It was lucky timing that our intelligence people located Bin Laden during Obama's term. And if no one knew for sure that Bin Laden was at the compound before the attack was launched, the President was guessing. He guessed right, but guessing isn't a repeatable skill. And realistically, you and I would have made the same decision to launch a strike.
In theory, the United States is protected from revolution because we have the option of voting out the bums we don't like. The reality, which is sinking in, is that our only option is to replace bums with bums. As long as no candidate feels the need to be philosophically consistent, or to base decisions on data, we don't have a functional government.
That's why I favor starting an emergency backup government using social media. I think we need an insurance policy against the total breakdown of civilization. We need a backup government that's ready to go in case our existing form of government loses its last shred of credibility and citizens start ignoring it.
Other countries have an emergency backup government in place. It's called the army. When the civilian government loses credibility with the people, the army can step in and maintain order while a new government is formed. That's roughly the case in Egypt and Pakistan, for example. But that sort of system has a high cost. The citizens of the United States wouldn't want a military government as an emergency backup. I think this country would prefer some sort of government-in-a-box backup solution that is organized over the Internet.
I think the major problem with our current form of government is that although the major parties are competing with each other, the system itself is a monopoly. There's no competition for the federal government as a whole. I think it would be useful to form a shadow government on the Internet, complete with chosen leaders and policies. That would create a sort of competition for the existing government. The media could keep tabs on how many citizens have a preference for the shadow government over the existing one. If the shadow government gets too much support, the existing government is likely to evolve to avoid relegation.
Competition is good. We need some competition for our entire system of government, not just competition within it. We also need an insurance policy in case citizens decide to revolt. Admittedly, that's a small risk, but that's the point of insurance - to protect against small risks with catastrophic potential.
If you think competition is good, insurance is prudent, and fact-based leadership is better than naked politics and superstition, you should be in favor of forming an emergency backup government on the Internet.
Meanwhile, President Obama is using scarce federal funds to shut down marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized medical marijuana. On this issue, the President is opposed to states' rights.
The interesting thing about the dual issues of gay marriage and medical marijuana is that both have a track record that can be evaluated. Why not use science, or at least economics, to figure out what works?
In places where gay marriage has been legal for some time, what has been the cost to society? Has the social structure crumbled? Did taxes go up? Did any hetero Christians turn gay from peer pressure? Was there an outbreak of bestiality? Did it rain toads?
Medical marijuana has also been practiced long enough in some places to have a track record. Did the states that legalized medical marijuana experience an uptick in traffic deaths? Or did all of the stoners driving home from the dispensaries slow commute traffic and make things safer? Did residents eat too many munchies and become obese? Did cancer patients start robbing convenience stores to pay for their habit?
One could argue that the minimum requirement to be called a leader is that you don't wait for your Vice President to become so embarrassed by your position on a prominent national issue (gay marriage) that he takes control, forcing you to meekly follow. President Obama glibly said that Vice President Biden "got over his skis" when he came out in support of gay marriage. Actually, Biden displayed leadership. I understand why the President didn't recognize it.
On the Republican side, Romney is like a bag that's half snakes and half candy. When you put your hand in, you never know what you're getting. Romney might be awesome. I like the general idea of putting a turnaround expert in the oval office at a time when we need one. But the reality is that we don't know what we're getting with Romney. He is, after all, a robot that professes a deep belief in magic. Good luck predicting how that would shake out.
President Obama is getting a lot of credit for killing Bin Laden. But how much credit should we give to luck? It was lucky timing that our intelligence people located Bin Laden during Obama's term. And if no one knew for sure that Bin Laden was at the compound before the attack was launched, the President was guessing. He guessed right, but guessing isn't a repeatable skill. And realistically, you and I would have made the same decision to launch a strike.
In theory, the United States is protected from revolution because we have the option of voting out the bums we don't like. The reality, which is sinking in, is that our only option is to replace bums with bums. As long as no candidate feels the need to be philosophically consistent, or to base decisions on data, we don't have a functional government.
That's why I favor starting an emergency backup government using social media. I think we need an insurance policy against the total breakdown of civilization. We need a backup government that's ready to go in case our existing form of government loses its last shred of credibility and citizens start ignoring it.
Other countries have an emergency backup government in place. It's called the army. When the civilian government loses credibility with the people, the army can step in and maintain order while a new government is formed. That's roughly the case in Egypt and Pakistan, for example. But that sort of system has a high cost. The citizens of the United States wouldn't want a military government as an emergency backup. I think this country would prefer some sort of government-in-a-box backup solution that is organized over the Internet.
I think the major problem with our current form of government is that although the major parties are competing with each other, the system itself is a monopoly. There's no competition for the federal government as a whole. I think it would be useful to form a shadow government on the Internet, complete with chosen leaders and policies. That would create a sort of competition for the existing government. The media could keep tabs on how many citizens have a preference for the shadow government over the existing one. If the shadow government gets too much support, the existing government is likely to evolve to avoid relegation.
Competition is good. We need some competition for our entire system of government, not just competition within it. We also need an insurance policy in case citizens decide to revolt. Admittedly, that's a small risk, but that's the point of insurance - to protect against small risks with catastrophic potential.
If you think competition is good, insurance is prudent, and fact-based leadership is better than naked politics and superstition, you should be in favor of forming an emergency backup government on the Internet.
The media treats with reverence the geniuses who invested early in tech giants
such as Google, Facebook, and other big Internet names. If you're a super
wealthy person, and you obtained your wealth by luck, inheritance, or financial
manipulation, you're probably eager to prove you have something useful to offer
the world. You want to be associated with a sexy new startup to demonstrate
your brilliance and establish some family honor. You want to do the modern
equivalent of buying yourself a title. Instead of becoming Lord of Devonshire,
you can be an early investor in a startup that might become a household name.
You want to be like Sean Parker, who will forever be introduced as co-founder
of Napster and founding president of Facebook. Internet companies are the new
royal titles.
My theory is that venture capital used to be a more rational business model. Today, I think venture capital is largely ego-driven. For wealthy investors, it's more about proving how smart you are, and having the chance to forever associate your name with a startup success. It's sort of like the Kennedy family transitioning from their bootlegging roots (allegedly!) to politics. Rich people often need to scrub their family reputations. Investing in startups is the modern way to do that.
I came up with the Ego Theory of Venture Capital while reading through a list of startups that recently got funded. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see anything in the bunch that looked like a potential winner. Ego has to be behind much of the funding because economics wouldn't explain such weak investments, even under a venture capital model. Historically, a venture investor hoped to succeed 10% of the time. Now I'm seeing startups that seem, at least to my non-expert eyes - to have something like a 1% chance of success.
Interestingly, all of the doomed startups comprise, collectively, a system in which poor people can redistribute wealth from the top 1% to themselves. If you want the rich to have less money, one sure way to do it is by starting an Internet company and getting venture capital funding. The only way your scheme for income redistribution can fail is if your startup unexpectedly succeeds and makes the rich investors richer. And what are the odds of that? Check out this article in Business Insider about the poor performance of venture funds.
Now we have this absurd situation in which society is complaining that the rich have too much money at the same time the rich are begging the poor to take their money. The only condition the wealthy put on the transfer of money is that the poor need to put together some PowerPoint presentations that use the words "social" and "cloud." Is that too much to ask?
If you think the rich have too much money, stop complaining and do something about it: Start your own Internet company and go get some venture capital funding.
My theory is that venture capital used to be a more rational business model. Today, I think venture capital is largely ego-driven. For wealthy investors, it's more about proving how smart you are, and having the chance to forever associate your name with a startup success. It's sort of like the Kennedy family transitioning from their bootlegging roots (allegedly!) to politics. Rich people often need to scrub their family reputations. Investing in startups is the modern way to do that.
I came up with the Ego Theory of Venture Capital while reading through a list of startups that recently got funded. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see anything in the bunch that looked like a potential winner. Ego has to be behind much of the funding because economics wouldn't explain such weak investments, even under a venture capital model. Historically, a venture investor hoped to succeed 10% of the time. Now I'm seeing startups that seem, at least to my non-expert eyes - to have something like a 1% chance of success.
Interestingly, all of the doomed startups comprise, collectively, a system in which poor people can redistribute wealth from the top 1% to themselves. If you want the rich to have less money, one sure way to do it is by starting an Internet company and getting venture capital funding. The only way your scheme for income redistribution can fail is if your startup unexpectedly succeeds and makes the rich investors richer. And what are the odds of that? Check out this article in Business Insider about the poor performance of venture funds.
Now we have this absurd situation in which society is complaining that the rich have too much money at the same time the rich are begging the poor to take their money. The only condition the wealthy put on the transfer of money is that the poor need to put together some PowerPoint presentations that use the words "social" and "cloud." Is that too much to ask?
If you think the rich have too much money, stop complaining and do something about it: Start your own Internet company and go get some venture capital funding.
Ever since Clay Shirky first used the quote “It’s not information overload.
It’s filter failure” at the Web 2.0 Expo in New York, back in 2008, there has
been an ongoing, everlasting, but rather passionate discussion from both sides
of the story pondering whether it’s really all about facing and dealing
with information overload or whether [...]
People like to say they care about future generations. That's ridiculous,
obviously. The reality is that people only care about perpetuating their own
genes. If we cared about the quality of life for future generations, most
births in modern societies would result from the sperm and eggs of donors that
are healthy, brilliant, talented, hard-working, happy, tall, and blessed with
excellent emotional intelligence. To keep things non-racist, let's assume the
donated sperm and eggs in my hypothetical situation come from the best
specimens in every ethnic group.
Just to be clear, I'm not recommending that society restrict reproduction to the best genetic specimens among us. That would violate all sorts of basic freedoms. All I'm saying is that if we cared about future generations, we have the means to solve a lot of their problems in advance through genetic management. In reality, we don't care too much about future generations, so the current method of mating all higgledy-piggledy is fine with everyone.
None of us wants to live in a world where human reproduction is restricted by the government, or even by social norms. I'm just making the case that if the current generation of child-bearing folks were to bite the bullet and voluntarily accept restrictions on their reproductive options, future generations wouldn't need to have the same restrictions. In a generation or two, society could go back to mating all higgledy-piggledy in the old-fashioned way, secure in the knowledge that any mate they might select in that future generation would be the product of good genes.
It's a creepy idea, right? Yeah, I get that. It's impractical too. But I'm sure people once said the same thing about donating their organs, and we got over that. The only real limitation to genetic management is psychological. We could get past it if we truly cared about the wellbeing of strangers that will be born after we die.
Just to be clear, I'm not recommending that society restrict reproduction to the best genetic specimens among us. That would violate all sorts of basic freedoms. All I'm saying is that if we cared about future generations, we have the means to solve a lot of their problems in advance through genetic management. In reality, we don't care too much about future generations, so the current method of mating all higgledy-piggledy is fine with everyone.
None of us wants to live in a world where human reproduction is restricted by the government, or even by social norms. I'm just making the case that if the current generation of child-bearing folks were to bite the bullet and voluntarily accept restrictions on their reproductive options, future generations wouldn't need to have the same restrictions. In a generation or two, society could go back to mating all higgledy-piggledy in the old-fashioned way, secure in the knowledge that any mate they might select in that future generation would be the product of good genes.
It's a creepy idea, right? Yeah, I get that. It's impractical too. But I'm sure people once said the same thing about donating their organs, and we got over that. The only real limitation to genetic management is psychological. We could get past it if we truly cared about the wellbeing of strangers that will be born after we die.
In the past we have talked a couple of times about the undeniable impact that
social networking (for business) is having in traditional management and
thought leadership by helping reshape and redefine some of their various long
time existing conceptions . There have been, indeed, a few great articles out
there that not only have [...]
Suppose you could snap your fingers and instantly reduce the huge disparity in
income distribution across the globe. Would you do it?
Many of you will probably say yes. You'd take some of the "extra" money from the rich and use it to help the needy. But suppose I put one condition on this magic power of yours. Suppose the only thing you can do by magic is reduce by half the wealth of the top 1% while knowing the money would be transferred to no one. The money would simply cease to exist. The rich would have half as much, while everyone else remained the same. Would you use your powers then?
I keep reading opinions that the gigantic gaps we see in income distributions are corrosive to a healthy society. If that's the case, using your magic to screw the rich should be a good thing for the world - including the rich themselves - even if the poor are not directly helped at the same time.
So how about it - Would you use your magic to screw the rich, thus reducing the gap in income distribution?
Many of you will probably say yes. You'd take some of the "extra" money from the rich and use it to help the needy. But suppose I put one condition on this magic power of yours. Suppose the only thing you can do by magic is reduce by half the wealth of the top 1% while knowing the money would be transferred to no one. The money would simply cease to exist. The rich would have half as much, while everyone else remained the same. Would you use your powers then?
I keep reading opinions that the gigantic gaps we see in income distributions are corrosive to a healthy society. If that's the case, using your magic to screw the rich should be a good thing for the world - including the rich themselves - even if the poor are not directly helped at the same time.
So how about it - Would you use your magic to screw the rich, thus reducing the gap in income distribution?
Have you visited an assisted living facility for the elderly lately? If you
have, I'll bet it was clean and professional, but also unspeakably sad. The
residents are well cared for, but they look lonely and bored and forgotten.
Maybe we should figure out how to fix that situation before it's our
turn.
If you consider the huge demographic wave of retirees coming down the road, and the fact that many haven't saved enough for retirement, and the fact that science keeps finding ways to keep our withered bodies alive longer, we have a big problem brewing. Where will all of those old people live?
Some oldsters will live with family, of course, and some will be independent until the end. But that still leaves tens of millions of old people in need of assisted living. What will that look like?
Let's begin by imagining an elder care facility designed to stimulate the residents and provide a great quality of life. Current facilities appear to be designed for efficiency, more like hospitals than hotels. What we have now are clean and bright facilities that are needlessly depressing. Let's start by getting some better colors in there, and adding some real design. Every room should have a second floor view of something beautiful and interesting, a gas fireplace, porcelain tile floors, interesting lighting, beamed ceiling, and a little extra space. Think of a lake cabin or a Spanish bungalow. Good design costs more, of course, but I'll talk about economics later.
Now imagine that each room has a huge flat screen TV on the wall, and speakers in the ceilings. The residents would also have the option of wireless headphones with built-in microphones for Skype calling, or for listening to loud shows, or music, or books on tape. I imagine the remote control for all of this in the form of an arm band, so it never gets misplaced during the day.
The TV and speaker systems for the one-room apartments would have interfaces designed especially for old people. The upcoming wave of elderly people will be comfortable enough with technology that we will have more options than before. The onscreen menus would be large and simple, and also operate on voice command. The lights, phone, and temperature would also be controllable from the menu on the TV. Let's also assume the oldsters can use the armband controller to speak directly with the staff in case they need something.
The genius part of my idea involves locating the elder care facility next to an animal rescue facility. It's the perfect symbiotic relationship. Both the old people and the animals want company. They can have each other all day long. There will be some extra hygiene issues, but humans live with dogs and cats now without much trouble. We might want to create common areas for human and pet interaction, to keep the fleas out of the main living areas.
I would also combine the elder care facility in the same building with a childcare area. Kids are germ carriers, and you wouldn't want much direct contact between the snot nosed kids and the seniors. But I think you could let the healthier seniors work part time in the childcare facility to give them something active to do. And for the rest of the seniors, it's just a happier environment when you can see kids coming and going, and playing behind glass windows. Call it the ambiance of life. And in some cases, the kids might be the grandkids of residents.
I'd also want each senior to have his or her own garden space, arranged in rows, at wheelchair height, in a common greenhouse. This gives the seniors something to cultivate and have fun with. There's something about gardening that appeals to most old people.
Now imagine a kid-sized soccer field in the courtyard of the assisted living facility. During the school day, the kids from childcare would use it to run wild. After school, older kids from the area would schedule the field for team sports. The elderly residents would have front row wheelchair access to watch the action.
Now imagine that the seniors can use their big screen TVs to Skype with family and friends from anywhere in their apartment. And let's assume the interface is designed with only a few visible options, such as "Call Timmy" or "Answer Call." If your grandma is in the facility, just fire up your iPad and visit her without leaving your couch. If you're having a birthday party for a grandkid, set up the call on the iPad and just leave its camera pointing in the direction of the action. Grandma will feel like she's in the room.
I can also imagine wheelchairs of the future being motorized and guided by a sort of in-house GPS system. If grandma wants to visit the animal petting area, or take a ride through the adjacent park to get some sun, she just tells the chair where she wants to go and it takes off on a slow ride.
Let's also imagine that all recreational drugs become legal for people over the age of 75. While drugs are clearly bad for kids, can we say the same thing about senior citizens? Recreational drugs might actually keep seniors healthier by increasing their happiness, energy, appetites, and general interest in life. And it's not as if seniors in assisted living will be operating heavy equipment or making important decisions. I don't see a downside.
Now that we've done a great job designing the assisted living facilities to be stimulating and life-affirming, how do we pay for all of that extra stuff without government assistance?
For starters, the facility can have a few extra sources of income. The childcare wing would be an income source, as would the sports field that could be rented out. I could also imagine beautiful garden areas around the grounds that are suitable for weddings and events. That's another revenue source. The facility could cater the reception as well. All of this activity helps to make the residents feel connected to the circle of life.
Now imagine that these senior facilities are owned and operated by a company that also sells long term care insurance. People would start paying for their assisted living while still relatively young. With insurance, most people will pay and never reap the benefits. I think people would pay a premium to know they have a guaranteed spot in a high end assisted living place if the time comes. Compare that sort of investment to the stock market, which is iffy at best. I think an argument can be made that investing in your own future assisted living is the smartest retirement investment you can make.
If you consider the huge demographic wave of retirees coming down the road, and the fact that many haven't saved enough for retirement, and the fact that science keeps finding ways to keep our withered bodies alive longer, we have a big problem brewing. Where will all of those old people live?
Some oldsters will live with family, of course, and some will be independent until the end. But that still leaves tens of millions of old people in need of assisted living. What will that look like?
Let's begin by imagining an elder care facility designed to stimulate the residents and provide a great quality of life. Current facilities appear to be designed for efficiency, more like hospitals than hotels. What we have now are clean and bright facilities that are needlessly depressing. Let's start by getting some better colors in there, and adding some real design. Every room should have a second floor view of something beautiful and interesting, a gas fireplace, porcelain tile floors, interesting lighting, beamed ceiling, and a little extra space. Think of a lake cabin or a Spanish bungalow. Good design costs more, of course, but I'll talk about economics later.
Now imagine that each room has a huge flat screen TV on the wall, and speakers in the ceilings. The residents would also have the option of wireless headphones with built-in microphones for Skype calling, or for listening to loud shows, or music, or books on tape. I imagine the remote control for all of this in the form of an arm band, so it never gets misplaced during the day.
The TV and speaker systems for the one-room apartments would have interfaces designed especially for old people. The upcoming wave of elderly people will be comfortable enough with technology that we will have more options than before. The onscreen menus would be large and simple, and also operate on voice command. The lights, phone, and temperature would also be controllable from the menu on the TV. Let's also assume the oldsters can use the armband controller to speak directly with the staff in case they need something.
The genius part of my idea involves locating the elder care facility next to an animal rescue facility. It's the perfect symbiotic relationship. Both the old people and the animals want company. They can have each other all day long. There will be some extra hygiene issues, but humans live with dogs and cats now without much trouble. We might want to create common areas for human and pet interaction, to keep the fleas out of the main living areas.
I would also combine the elder care facility in the same building with a childcare area. Kids are germ carriers, and you wouldn't want much direct contact between the snot nosed kids and the seniors. But I think you could let the healthier seniors work part time in the childcare facility to give them something active to do. And for the rest of the seniors, it's just a happier environment when you can see kids coming and going, and playing behind glass windows. Call it the ambiance of life. And in some cases, the kids might be the grandkids of residents.
I'd also want each senior to have his or her own garden space, arranged in rows, at wheelchair height, in a common greenhouse. This gives the seniors something to cultivate and have fun with. There's something about gardening that appeals to most old people.
Now imagine a kid-sized soccer field in the courtyard of the assisted living facility. During the school day, the kids from childcare would use it to run wild. After school, older kids from the area would schedule the field for team sports. The elderly residents would have front row wheelchair access to watch the action.
Now imagine that the seniors can use their big screen TVs to Skype with family and friends from anywhere in their apartment. And let's assume the interface is designed with only a few visible options, such as "Call Timmy" or "Answer Call." If your grandma is in the facility, just fire up your iPad and visit her without leaving your couch. If you're having a birthday party for a grandkid, set up the call on the iPad and just leave its camera pointing in the direction of the action. Grandma will feel like she's in the room.
I can also imagine wheelchairs of the future being motorized and guided by a sort of in-house GPS system. If grandma wants to visit the animal petting area, or take a ride through the adjacent park to get some sun, she just tells the chair where she wants to go and it takes off on a slow ride.
Let's also imagine that all recreational drugs become legal for people over the age of 75. While drugs are clearly bad for kids, can we say the same thing about senior citizens? Recreational drugs might actually keep seniors healthier by increasing their happiness, energy, appetites, and general interest in life. And it's not as if seniors in assisted living will be operating heavy equipment or making important decisions. I don't see a downside.
Now that we've done a great job designing the assisted living facilities to be stimulating and life-affirming, how do we pay for all of that extra stuff without government assistance?
For starters, the facility can have a few extra sources of income. The childcare wing would be an income source, as would the sports field that could be rented out. I could also imagine beautiful garden areas around the grounds that are suitable for weddings and events. That's another revenue source. The facility could cater the reception as well. All of this activity helps to make the residents feel connected to the circle of life.
Now imagine that these senior facilities are owned and operated by a company that also sells long term care insurance. People would start paying for their assisted living while still relatively young. With insurance, most people will pay and never reap the benefits. I think people would pay a premium to know they have a guaranteed spot in a high end assisted living place if the time comes. Compare that sort of investment to the stock market, which is iffy at best. I think an argument can be made that investing in your own future assisted living is the smartest retirement investment you can make.
If earlier on this week we were talking about the increasing concerns on how
high level executives, CIOs mainly, keep taking for granted social
collaboration and how perhaps they need to shift gears and stop considering
it’s a given, here’s today’s blog post where I will reflect on a recent article
put together by the [...]
Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that
likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is
written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is
not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post
or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for
whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I read that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that human activity is a contributing factor. That sounds convincing to me. I'm not qualified to argue with climate scientists about climate science. But it makes me wonder how often experts have accurately predicted anything of this complexity.
That isn't a rhetorical question. I actually wonder what our track record is for predicting the outcomes of complex systems.
One might argue, by analogy, that an automobile is a complicated machine, yet it's easy to predict what will happen if you put sugar in the gas tank. Perhaps all we need to know about climate science is that any change to the global mix of chemistry is likely to change the temperature. Is it that simple?
Climate change skeptics suggest that the environment will somehow automatically regulate itself, perhaps through offsetting changes in cloud behavior. That sounds like something I wouldn't want to count on. And apparently the cloud theory of self-regulation has been debunked.
But back to my main question: Can you name some examples from history in which the strong consensus of experts - scientists or other - accurately predicted the outcome of something as complicated as the global climate?
It's no fair picking examples in which experts merely interpreted what happened in the past, such as evolution, or the birth of the universe. It's easier to figure out what happened in the past than it is to predict what will happen in the future.
I'm curious how many of you simultaneously hold the following two nearly-contradictory opinions:
1. Climate change is real because scientists say so.
2. Experts have never accurately predicted anything so complicated.
According to most climate scientists, we know that the average temperature of the world has increased in recent years. That part seems settled. But is it equally certain that the trend will continue and become a global catastrophe?
I believe that my question can't be objectively answered because climate change is too politicized. Your opinion on how well humans predict complex systems will depend on what you already decided about climate change. Please prove me wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I read that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that human activity is a contributing factor. That sounds convincing to me. I'm not qualified to argue with climate scientists about climate science. But it makes me wonder how often experts have accurately predicted anything of this complexity.
That isn't a rhetorical question. I actually wonder what our track record is for predicting the outcomes of complex systems.
One might argue, by analogy, that an automobile is a complicated machine, yet it's easy to predict what will happen if you put sugar in the gas tank. Perhaps all we need to know about climate science is that any change to the global mix of chemistry is likely to change the temperature. Is it that simple?
Climate change skeptics suggest that the environment will somehow automatically regulate itself, perhaps through offsetting changes in cloud behavior. That sounds like something I wouldn't want to count on. And apparently the cloud theory of self-regulation has been debunked.
But back to my main question: Can you name some examples from history in which the strong consensus of experts - scientists or other - accurately predicted the outcome of something as complicated as the global climate?
It's no fair picking examples in which experts merely interpreted what happened in the past, such as evolution, or the birth of the universe. It's easier to figure out what happened in the past than it is to predict what will happen in the future.
I'm curious how many of you simultaneously hold the following two nearly-contradictory opinions:
1. Climate change is real because scientists say so.
2. Experts have never accurately predicted anything so complicated.
According to most climate scientists, we know that the average temperature of the world has increased in recent years. That part seems settled. But is it equally certain that the trend will continue and become a global catastrophe?
I believe that my question can't be objectively answered because climate change is too politicized. Your opinion on how well humans predict complex systems will depend on what you already decided about climate change. Please prove me wrong.
Ok, back to Social Business. After the last few days where I have been blogging
a number of different times about some musings on redesigning and refining
further along the workplace of the future, it’s time to get down to business
again and continue to share further insights around social networking /
computing for business [...]
Share
