Re: POLITICS - Scalability and swarm intelligence.

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> So what is the take away lesson? Well the obvious one is don't trust

>> the Republicans, what they say and what they do are two different

>> things. But if that is all you go away with then, IMO, you have

>> sorely missed the point.

>

> Well, ok, then that makes sense. Actually I DO know the bit

> about Democrats ... it just makes me angry to keep hearing

> people talk about Democrats wanting " big government " and

> being " spend happy " when we just had 8 years of fairly

> reasonable gov't that balanced the budget.

The government wasn't controlled by Democrats. There was a Democratic

president and a strong Republican majority in the House. I doubt very

much that we would have seen spending controlled as tightly if the House

Republicans had not been there as a check against the Democrats in the

Senate (I think they controlled it then) and the White House. IIRC, they

clashed numerous times over just that, with Clinton vetoing spending

bills which he thought were too stingy. That's what that overhyped

government shutdown was about, right? The problem now is that the

Republicans are acting as enablers for Bush when they'd never let a

Democrat get away with it. I know it's not going to happen, but my ideal

scenario (limiting it to the almost-plausible) for 2004 would be for a

Democrat to take back the White House and for the Republicans to make

some gains in Congress. We need some more of that gridlock action.

>> The greater point, IMO, is don't trust politicians period. I'm

>> picking on the Republicans in this post, but I could have just as

>> well picked on the Democrats. The difference is by and large I know

>> what I am getting with a Democrat. With the Republicans I'm getting

>> nothing but smoke and mirrors.

>

> Well, I WISH we had more than a 2-party system. I'm not in favor

> of Big Gov't (though compared to and maybe you it might

> seem that way).

You sure fooled me!

> I like the IEEE model ... which is more or less

> how the Internet was set up ... global rules, local implementation...

....And voluntary compliance.

> I'm not sure how you get that? There is a whole spectrum of shades

> between " no government " and " the Kremlin " . I'm coming at it

> from a system analysis point of view, and a " system " as big

> as the " US " , just won't work without some central control and

> organization.

The incomprehensible size and complexity of the national economy is

precisely the reason why centralized control can never work. Putting

aside the mass murder, socialism has always failed magnificently in

terms of meeting the needs of consumers, not due to the incompetence of

the planners, but simply because the typical industrial economy is too

complex by several orders of magnitude to be directed in a top-down

fashion. I think I see the central flaw in your reasoning now. You've

trying to take what works at a tribal level and scale it up to a

national level, but you can't scale central planning from a tribal level

to a national level any more than you can scale a linear search from a

list of fifty to a list of fifty million. You need a better algorithm.

Being a programmer, you've heard of swarm intelligence, right? The basic

principle behind it is that a group of independent agents with simple

behavioral rules can work together to achieve goals efficiently without

any explicit organization. What they are beginning to find is not only

that top-down organization is unnecessary for many applications, but

that problems which are very difficult to solve with traditional

top-down analysis can be solved much more easily and efficiently with

swarm intelligence. It's funny that you should mention systems analysis,

because one of the first applications of swarm intelligence was network

optimization.

Here's an article from Scientific American:

http://dsp.jpl.nasa.gov/members/payman/swarm/sciam/index.html

Of course, this is nothing new--economists have understood this

principle for well over two centuries. Adam called it the

invisible hand.

> The smaller organizations keep coalescing into bigger ones .. in

> terms of states and corporations and religions, and that process has

> been going on for the last 5,000 years or so. Any one of those 3

> organizations can make life miserable for you and me.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but no corporation has ever made

life miserable for me. In fact, I really don't have any major complaints

about any corporations. I suppose I've had minor annoyances from time to

time, but I just take my business elsewhere and forget about it. On the

balance, my experience with corporations has been highly positive. In

fact, I have trouble imagining any scenario in which any single

corporation, or any swarm of corporations, would be more of a problem

for me than the state. Not that it's made my life miserable either, but

it's certainly made it less pleasant.

> The second question is how to make life decently livable in

> an industrial economy, for which we are incredibly poorly adapted.

I'm doing all right. Just dandy, in fact.

[Guest guest]

>The government wasn't controlled by Democrats. There was a Democratic

>president and a strong Republican majority in the House. I doubt very

>much that we would have seen spending controlled as tightly if the House

>Republicans had not been there as a check against the Democrats in the

>Senate (I think they controlled it then) and the White House

Hmm. I wonder why those Republicans aren't controlling it now?

I think Perot had a lot to do with it .. he really publicized the

whole national debt problem.

>. IIRC, they

>clashed numerous times over just that, with Clinton vetoing spending

>bills which he thought were too stingy. That's what that overhyped

>government shutdown was about, right? The problem now is that the

>Republicans are acting as enablers for Bush when they'd never let a

>Democrat get away with it. I know it's not going to happen, but my ideal

>scenario (limiting it to the almost-plausible) for 2004 would be for a

>Democrat to take back the White House and for the Republicans to make

>some gains in Congress. We need some more of that gridlock action.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. In general, life seems to work

best when forces are in opposition. Shoot, even your body

works that way ... you have two hormones that balance each

other out and they keep stability that way. Your brain works

that way too -- for each " impulse " there is a " damper " .

Might be why the US worked at it's best with the USSR in

opposition, or even in opposition to the baddies during WW2.

> >

>> Well, I WISH we had more than a 2-party system. I'm not in favor

>> of Big Gov't (though compared to and maybe you it might

>> seem that way).

>

>You sure fooled me!

Like I said, COMPARED to you ... compared to some liberals I'm

dowrnight conservative.

>> I like the IEEE model ... which is more or less

>> how the Internet was set up ... global rules, local implementation...

>

>...And voluntary compliance.

Voluntary? If you break the rules you are kicked off the net.

Computer systems don't work on voluntary. That makes them

more like the hunter-gatherer societies: strict rules, if you don't

follow them, you are kicked out. Within the rules, you can

do whatever you want.

Now, we ran out of room to kick people out of modern

society, is the problem. Though Neal son posited

a society based on closed communities in some unnamed

future, which isn't far from what you might be talking

about ( " Diamond Age " -- great book!).

>The incomprehensible size and complexity of the national economy is

>precisely the reason why centralized control can never work.

Which is why the people who analyze systems have come up with

the idea of centralized standards and enforcement, local control.

>fashion. I think I see the central flaw in your reasoning now. You've

>trying to take what works at a tribal level and scale it up to a

>national level, but you can't scale central planning from a tribal level

>to a national level any more than you can scale a linear search from a

>list of fifty to a list of fifty million. You need a better algorithm.

Actually my algorithm is from computer science and systems

analysis. The tribal mechanism didn't WORK for a lot of things

(like limiting homicide, as pointed out, also for limiting

starvation, overhunting, etc.). So the tribes merged and formed cities

etc. etc. and farming etc. etc. as per Guns, Germs and Steel. The better

armed " civilized " folk overwhelmed the tribes.

Our " large scale " society works BETTER for a lot of things (guys don't

kill each other so much, we live longer, we rarely starve) but it

also leaves us unfulfilled and leaves our children unattended a lot.

So, we need something that makes us feel more fulfilled and in

control (like the tribe) but equalizes the vagaries of human nature

and takes care of crazy homicidal maniacs and helps minimize

the impact of things like famine and pestilence (like the nation-state).

I haven't the foggiest idea what that WILL look like, but the current

" stop regulation and taxes " form of liberalism that I hear about is

likely to just give power to the OTHER two power-brokers in

the equation: the corporations and religious entities. (I say

" religious entities " not " religion " -- if you doubt that some religions in

action

are NOT about power, read some history).

>Being a programmer, you've heard of swarm intelligence, right? The basic

>principle behind it is that a group of independent agents with simple

>behavioral rules can work together to achieve goals efficiently without

>any explicit organization.

Exactly. Hence IEEE. However, in a swarm, a bee that doesn't follow

the rules is a dead bee. Who makes the rules, who enforces them?

Also, swarm intelligence does not allow for compassion. Any entity

who does not follow the rules is dead. So you have to be willing

to sacrifice the handicapped, those supporting babies (hopefully

breast-feeding, which makes it hard to work in most jobs), the mentally

ill, etc. OR -- you have to account for those people within the rules.

Actually, in a hive, the queen bee IS taken care of while she lays eggs,

and the nurse bees are fed by the " worker " bees, which is I guess

a form of welfare state (the nurse bees aren't married, after all,

so they have to stay home and feed the kids!). I don't know

what bees do with their mentally ill or old folks.

>Here's an article from Scientific American:

><http://dsp.jpl.nasa.gov/members/payman/swarm/sciam/index.html>http://dsp.jpl.n\

asa.gov/members/payman/swarm/sciam/index.html

I do love that magazine. That is what I was talking about with IEEE too.

>Of course, this is nothing new--economists have understood this

>principle for well over two centuries. Adam called it the

>invisible hand.

And it has worked ... for a lot of things. It has also given us a society

where more and more people are working so hard they have no

time for family and they are totally stressed out.

But ... I DO believe in a rule-based system, which is basically

what I was talking about in an earilier post. I think it is more

or less where we are headed ... we just don't know what set

of rules works yet. (which is why I told it wasn't really

an issue of " morals " ).

>> The smaller organizations keep coalescing into bigger ones .. in

>> terms of states and corporations and religions, and that process has

>> been going on for the last 5,000 years or so. Any one of those 3

>> organizations can make life miserable for you and me.

>

>I'm not sure where you're coming from, but no corporation has ever made

>life miserable for me. In fact, I really don't have any major complaints

>about any corporations.

Maybe you never lived downwind from one who was truly a polluter!

Most corporations nowadays are fairly benign, largely, I think, because

of the worker protection laws. Like I said, two entities in equilibrium ...

we got ergonomic chairs and keyboards because Boeing was afraid

of the workers laws. But they took every ounce they could

get, within those laws. Before the anti-pollution laws came into

effect, they dumped arsenic, mercury, and PCBs into the water, no problem.

Now the Inuit pay for that. The " invisible hand " has little role for

compassion or care for the environment, which was the problem

the tribal cultures ran into also.

I think the government, in regards to corporations, should play the

same role it does toward people and homicide: prevent them from

doing too much harm. Humans in our society don't kill each other

much, because it isn't allowed, and those laws are enforced. There

are rules that should (and do) govern the relations between corporations,

and between the corporation and it's people. Just like your swarm! If the

rules are good rules, everyone benefits.

My life in corporate land was horrid, largely because I'm allergic

to cigarette smoke. Everyone smoked -- I complained, they said,

well, they couldn't do anything about it, the workers had rights.

Until it became illegal. Then presto! No smoke inside buildings.

Suddenly, I can BREATH again!

Your life as a worker would be far different also if, for instance, you

lived in 1910. The rules for corporations are better now than

they were then.

As for where I am coming from ... the forces that are working now

are working to make EVERYTHING bigger and more complex. The

humans that control each entity are into POWER (always have been)

and control. Therefore instead of having one maybe twerpy

clan leader, you now can have a twerpy leader of a very well

armed nation. Therefore, something has to oppose that big

entity or bring it under control. The entity won't just GO AWAY

because you don't like big entities.

>> The second question is how to make life decently livable in

>> an industrial economy, for which we are incredibly poorly adapted.

>

>I'm doing all right. Just dandy, in fact.

I suspect you are in one of the higher paid jobs that isn't

being contracted overseas yet. Further, you can get health

insurance because you haven't happened to get some problem

that deems you ineligible. And you have plenty of money socked

away so that, if you should be laid up for a year from a car

accident, you'll be fine. And you have no dependents, no

mother with Alzheimer's take care of (or you have a sibling

who takes care of her). You went through college at a state-funded

school or on scholarship. And you are the beneficiary of a lot

of laws that were brought into being by liberal activists, but shoot,

you don't need them now. You are an independent, free male -- the

ideal!

Sure, you are doing fine! You are exactly the kind of person that

does not think they need help, nor should you be required

to help others.

-- Heidi