Dan Ariely: Why Humans Are Hard-Wired To Create Asset Bubbles

We are not allowed to throw our hands up in the air and say "It is all too hard" However:-
My ego demands that I defend bringing chaos and complexity into the discussion. Or else It will just Pop.

The general winding down of the Cosmos produces heat death. Life counters this and produces emergent properties and emergent complexities out of the stream of energy going past…

Why? Dunno. The faster we use energy, the greater the rate of entropy and the faster the emergent properties happen.

Without oil there is likely to be simplification. I am in favour of Life and it's complexities. Heat death sounds boring.

…in the eighteenth century definition of that word, "oh he's a gentlemen, so he has no profession at all".  If we all did not all need to put bread on the table we could have the robust discussion that these topics deserve.  Maybe I will have time later to post in more detail.  My day is full and I am behind on a dozen or so projects.
My own world view is quite the opposite, I believe that the universe is not in the least bit chaotic, but I think in the few brief paragraphs tossed back and forth, I don't think we have a common agreement on what we mean by that term.  I have a feeling that it has more to do with our feeling about the nature of free will, and not a qualitative principle guiding the universe, perhaps I'm wrong, I don't want to prejudge the matter. But it would take a lengthy discussion to bear that out.   Although I do believe that collectively we are on the verge of a quantum level change in reality, and the old dysfunctional ways are intensifying before they perish.  We create what we believe, we believe in chaos and we are certainly creating that in spades.

For my own part, I believe love is the foundation of the universe, and that every part, particle and species is deeply in love with every other part.  The nature of the universe that we see, that is unfolding before our eyes is one of deep and intense relationships, the kind we are barely able to perceive in our deepest human "love" relationships.  Whether it be soil microbes and mycelia, mineral and plant life or complex relationships between aquatic life or the deer and their predators that roam the woods outside my window.  Is the world what we would call a "cruel teacher", yes, but that sense of cruelty comes only from our own distorted view of reality.  That is love.

The limits of intellectual perception have been laid out clearly in the heisenberg uncertainty principle, and our impact on reality by our mere perception in the wave particle duality of light.  The orbital description of atoms has long been displaced with energetic fields of probability. But what we need to know regarding how we should conduct ourselves has been said a thousand times.  Native Americans long ago developed the principal of seven generations, yet in our current demented system, the brightest among are trying to skim money out of the system by compressing transaction times by milliseconds.  We are pushing time in the wrong direction and our shortsightedness is destroying us.

Edit: The Diamond has many facets? No. It is definitely mine.

[quote=cmartenson]Of course the bankers will never cede their power and "share" of the economy willingly.  No group ever seems to do this, be they bankers, politicians, or boy scouts.  
Putting the Boy Scouts in the same sentence with bankers and politicians, that's just cold. 
T2H (Den Leader)

I find this interview and discussion to be rich and important.  We seem to be grappling with ever deeper, less obvious, more powerful layers of understanding here at PP. 

I was struck by the idea of “choice architecture” from the interview.  Don’t we run into that every single minute?  The choices built into the architecture of industrial civilization are simply NOT the ones that would build “a world worth inheriting”.  For example, though I can and do choose not to own a car, I still, even though the growing season I grew up with has morphed into a new and difficult beast here in the West Kootenays, get into a fossil-fueled vehicle of some sort many times a week in order to have money.  The choices I need to make – make a living where I live or get to work without further damaging the climate – are not available.  No wonder it’s an effort to decide to consider climate change.


On the issue of the climate change discussion here at PP:

Dr. M. says: “…what are the best ways of motivating people towards taking new actions? That is the work I care about.” 


There seems to be a concern that long, loud, angry, overwhelming CC discussions will not help motivate people to start thinking and acting on any part of the 3 Es.  Point taken.


Others call for a more public and completely rigorous acknowledgement of CC because that’s what we do here at PP.  There seems to be a concern that we MUST take CC on because it is real and terribly impactful.  Fair enough.


I don’t have a solution but can offer heartfelt understanding for both desires.  I do not think they are in conflict with each other. Possibly we could find a way to be both really good at motivating people towards taking new actions AND excellent at coming to grips with climate change. 


A related comment might be that no matter how urgent an issue is, an unprepared, unsupported, unskilled mind may nevertheless not be able to engage with it.  To look at CC requires plowing through masses of data, and extremely heated, devious, confusing controversy.  I have a strong mind and I can’t take it.  I get there anyway by registering the images of retreating glaciers and icecaps, noticing how tomato plants can’t grow here in June anymore and recognizing that burning fossil fuels like we do is just inconsistent with my values. And if one is successful in finding data they trust, what task do they face?  Acknowledging the possible end of the biosphere we know, love and utterly depend upon.  This is a lot to ask!  It brings me to my knees.  My orientation to life on Earth has to go through deep and painful reorganization every time to let in the magnitude of the situation.  I don’t wonder that many folks won’t think about it, and do wonder how we can become much, much better at helping people develop the inner resources that let this level of engagement happen.


Love, as Treebeard so often eloquently expresses, is the place I can stand in the storm.  Love of biosphere.  Love, though I cannot know if said biosphere will persist.  Love, though I get it wrong every day (see paragraph 1).  Let your heart break again love.  Love it now, for what it is and has been for so long, our everything.  I have been working on taking in that my most natural allegiance is not to this current, insane form of civilization but rather to the biosphere of my home planet. Even that is a few degrees off since the deepest truth I can occasionally experience is that I simply AM planet.  “Merge” is an interesting new inner directive. 


Sadly, my time is very constricted now with a new work situation, so I’m going to post this half-baked and incomplete.  Much appreciation to you all for your mind-stretching posts!



If anyone is interested in having an evidence-driven discussion of why complexity does or does not refute the findings of climate science, I would be happy to do so in Peak Prosperity's Definitive Climate Change thread.[/quote]

No mention of logic,   well that is appropriate, because logic takes a big holiday in that thread …

The finest supporting example of a lack of logic comes from Mark Cochrane, (with a degree in environmental engineering from MIT and a doctorate in ecology from Penn State.)

In an 'Alice in wonderland' way he 'proves' modeling the climate is vastly simpler than modeling the weather.

The reasoning in Marks 'proof'  is essentially that if your model makes enough estimates of the temperature of the planet, it will produce a result very close to the actual average of the planet.

Despite many attempts, none of the true believers in that thread can see the glaring logical failure of the argument.

The problem with his 'proof' is that it proves ANY model will produce an accurate result as long as it does enough estimates.

Can you see my point here ?

With such a fundamental failure to be able to reason objectively, the 'discussion' on climate change is no better than the Mad Hatters tea party.


Finally to quote Dr Chris Martenson  "I don't normally wade into these waters mainly because the entire topic of global warming, for many, comes down to a matter of belief and is therefore subject to a rapid escalation of emotions."


Regards Hamish

Logic 101.
There are two forms of proof.

  1. Proof by deduction. An example: Men build airships. I am a man, therefore I build airships. Except that I am a man and I don't build airships.
  2. Proof by induction: I have counted a thousand swans. They are all white. Therefore all swans are white.
What can we gain from that? Proof is a goal set by an opponent who wants to set an impossible standard because there is no such thing as "proof". Evidence is a much stronger position than "proof" or "Logic". Logic is for mere machines. It is the basis of the computer on which this passage is written.

So let us not wave "Proof" and Logic" around so freely as though the words had some sort of Magic Power.

And how is evidence gathered? By the felt experience. Fortunately we are able to enhance our experience with prosthesis. My vision is sharpened with glasses. And in the same way our instruments bring us information that is beyond our senses to experience.

When the correct relationship is established between the Model-making left brain and it's natural Master, the Right brain then one is in a much better position to understand "Reality."

And the Reality has been shown by quantum physics to be as much a mirage as the models in your left brain. But that is a subject for another missive. There is a lot that can be said about the relationship of the Left model-making brain and its product, Quantum physics.

Did I mention Quality?


[quote=Arthur Robey]Logic 101.
There are two forms of proof.
Proof by deduction. An example: Men build airships. I am a man, therefore I build airships. Except that I am a man and I don't build airships.
Proof by induction: I have counted a thousand swans. They are all white. Therefore all swans are white.
For logic 101 you use logical fallacies ! the contagion spreads!!!
LOL Hamish