I love how Robb generalizes phenomena, creating useful frameworks that find application in many disparate domains (e.g. economics, politics, warfare, sociology, etc.) His latest is the concept of a “dissipative system,” a system that draws energy from its surroundings to resist entropic forces:

This upshot of this is that it can extract energy from this larger external environment to increase its structural complexity (build itself up through a process called self-assembly). It can also use this external environment to dump the entropy created during the energy conversion process to minimize the deleterious impact on its structure.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking (obsessing a bit, perhaps) about how complexity emerges in various forms (at different physical scales, on different substrates), and how our own individual experiences of consciousness fit into those ideas. Robb’s “dissipative structures” is a useful tool for generalizing the underlying constraint that shapes selection functions for natural selection at every level.

For example, in a later post, Robb begins re-framing economic and conventional warfare in terms of dissipative systems in conflict:

NOTES: Isolate your opponent from the external environment to prevent energy acquisition and trap entropy (force them towards thermodynamic equilibrium and “heat death”). Increase your own connectivity to acquire energy and expel entropy faster (movement farther away from thermodynamic equilibrium and greater structural complexity).

I had this to add, in a comment on that post:

The function that translates energy into complexity is far from constant. It is highly dependent on technology, for example (compare joules required to power the Pony Express vs. fiber optic communcation, per byte.) You might call this “efficiency,” but my suspicion is that the translation function is much more complicated than that.

In any case, struggling over energy sources is necessary tactic for dissipative system, but a system may prevail with lower energy sources if its energy-to-complexity function outperforms.

HASA (Harvard Alumni for Social Action) was started by a bunch of ‘81 alums to advocate the use of the university’s enormous endowment (estimated to go from $35 to $100 billion in the next ten years) for social good. From the site:

Harvard Alumni for Social Action (HASA) is an independent organization open to all Harvard alumni who seek to encourage the University to use donations for social good. HASA members believe that Harvard’s prominence and wealth make it uniquely able to support educational and research institutions in developing countries. HASA therefore works to fund scholarships for African graduate students at Harvard and also to fund infrastructure improvements at needy African universities.

At the moment, the mission sounds like it’s limited to educational grants. I hope they think bigger as more people take interest in the idea and join the org (I just did.) Harvard is a university which presumably has a huge number of innovative ideas around development. Example: the Kennedy School alone probably has half a dozen graduate students thinking about how unhealthy political structures cause the “resource curse” in developing countries (see this TED talk for an interesting discussion on that topic.) Now, imagine if there were huge grants for those graduate students to do research abroad. “Business plan” competitions for social ventures. New departments, even.

I hope HASA expands into a general-use fund directed globally at fixing the social problems that current markets can’t fix on their own. If such things already exist at Harvard and at other schools, I hope HASA finds ways to support them. This is a topic of such enormous interest (academically, politically, and meathook-future realistically.) If they aim higher, perhaps they can draw many orders of magnitude of funding more than they’re currently raising.

A very False Profit topic will be discussed at this week’s “Journal Club”: the idea that capitalist patterns can somehow be applied to eliminating poverty at a higher rate than capitalism in its current incarnation. It starts in about fifteen minutes; I’ll post notes here, later. For now, here are links to our required reading:

• An essay by Muhammed Yunus
• Bill Gates’ speech at Davos (or, watch it on Youtube)
• there’s also a William Easterly critique of the Bill Gates speech that I’ll link to, soon

Update: I may or may not be able to write more about this. David Grosof, our extremely overeducated presenter, rattled off ideas and manged discussion at a rate that I didn’t even try to capture in note form. Most likely, interested parties will have to catch me in person to start up the discusison. I’ve included his initial prompt for discussion, after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s another batch of notes on three TED Talks (you can see all of them here). The Pinker one is particularly interesting, to me; I’m going to solicit comments from an email list I’m on.

Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence

Pinker lays out a story of humanity that I believe to be true, but has been challenged repeatedly by those I’m close to: A long history of dramatically-declining violence and a commensurate increase in our empathy towards the other. He describes this history at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and individual years, calling it a “fractal” decline. He also draws from thinkers over the last hundred years to lay out four explanations for why this decline has occurred:

1. Thomas Hobbes: Life in a state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The Hobbesian solution to this problem was the “leviathan state,” a central authority with a monopoly on violent power. The Machiavellian explanation here would give some credit to the rise of central governments for the
2. Life is Cheap: When suffering and early death are commonplace, the consequences of violence seem less dramatic to us. As wealth and quality of life increase, so does our value of that life, even if it is of the Other.
3. Robert Wright: Nonzero-sum games can often result in parties benefitting when they trade or cooperate rather than enter into violent conflict. Over time, the greater ability of parties to communicate has allowed more and more people to discover these nonzero-sum dynamics in more and more situations.
4. Peter Singer: The “expanding circle” of empathy. This, too, has been borne along by increasing wealth, access to communication technologies, and education.

There are holes that one can poke in this description of our history. Pinker’s narrative is very Euro-centric (what happened in China during these centuries? Africa?) It also completely ignores the incidence of sexual violence towards women; It’s hard to say if that how much that has declined over the ages, if it has.

Overall, though, I think Pinker is right. I’d be interested to see any data that contradicts the trend line that he can draw from hunter gatherer times to our own.

Bill Clinton: TED Prize wish: Let’s build and health care system in Rwanda

Clinton discusses the work of his foundation, and how it fits into the larger picture of social inequalities and development work. He stresses the importance of focusing on systems rather than taking on problems piecemeal. The Clinton foundation cut out middlemen in Haiti, cutting per-annum costs of anti-retrovirals from $3500 to $500, and then reduced it further to $190 by helping the pharmaceutical companies change their business models (from “jewelry store” to “grocery market.”) Mentions Paul Farmer’s Partners in Health; they are working with PIH to reproduce that system in Rwanda. In time, they want to develop a health administration system that can be adapted for any number of other countries. An interesting thought on “fund leakage”: On corruption in developing nations, Clinton mentions that he believes that lost opportunities due to health problems are a much greater problem, and they in fact feed corruption.

Juan Enriquez: Why can’t we grow new energy?

Playing on words, Enriquez extends the definition of “bioenergy” to include coal and oil, which of course were originally plant and animal matter, eons ago. He describes the possibility of using biological processes to convert underground oil and coal into gas, thus allowing us to extract the energy content without mining, and thus greatly increasing the reserves we have access too (3x, possibly.) He likens the possible growth of such an industry to the “green revolution” that allowed the productivity of agriculture to boom in the 20th century: think in terms of biology, not chemistry, in order to scale massively.

Of course, this is not a carbon-reduction technique (in fact, it sounds like a perilous way to keep dirty energy costs very low.) Enriquez proposes it only a “bridge” to new tech.

Another, separate idea: stabilizing oil prices by taxing to set a floor on oil prices, giving alternative fuels a floor to work with (and thus be able to invest against.)

As usual, you can see all of the TED talk notes, here.

I’ve been consuming TED talks at a fairly rapid pace for a year now, and they keep on coming. As I’ve been going along, I’ve been capturing brief notes on the ones that I’ve found interesting. Going forward, I’m going to post small batches here. This is mostly for my own reference, but maybe the internets will also find them useful.

Here are the first three (you can see all of them here):

Ron Eglash: African fractals, in buildings and braids

I rolled my eyes a couple times as he was introducing his topic, but as the talk went on, most of my skepticism was addressed, and then I was totally absorbed. He seems to have found many instances where fractal math was consciously used in African culture for very practical engineering and cultural purposes. He has also found that this conscious use of fractals is not present in other non-state societies. He finishes his talk by mentioning how these cultural uses can actually be used in the US to show African-American students that their heritage includes a rich mathematical history, as well.

Matthieu Ricard: Habits of happiness

A Quebecois molecular biologist-turned monk relates the basics of Buddhism, from a Westerner’s point of view. This talk is simple and straightforward, they way I like my explanations of Buddhism. There is a good balance here that represents my belief in mindfulness practice: part subjective experience, part science.

Amory Lovins: We must win the oil endgame

Author of the book Winning the Oil Endgame sees the path to an oil-import-free U.S. as a profitable, not a costly one. His ideas are comprehensive, including new materials for making cars lighter, “feebates” to change buying incentives per weight class of car (rather than between them), and an overall focus on efficiency. The latter one is interesting, as he makes those savings clear by pricing efficiency in terms of $/barrel of oil displaced. He is very glib with his free-market cheerleading, however, and explain very well why profit motives haven’t already pushed our industries to make these changes on their own. Some of his comments about the military wanting to defend America rather than oil pipelines in foreign countries are incredibly naive; it’s not our people on the ground who make policy, it’s the politicians who are financially bound to arms manufacturers.

Again, you can see all of the ted talk notes, here.

Amy posted on her blog about the difficulty of buying responsibly. In her post, she links to an SF Chronicle article that traces the myriad social and environmental costs of real versus fake Christmas trees. Amy notes:

the article more or less concludes that the number of variables to consider when determining whether to buy a product or which product to choose over another in terms of sustainability are completely overwhelming, but even though sometimes it feels like the more informed you are the harder it is to make the decision, there is always a better choice and we should just do our best.

For sure, it’s really difficult as a consumer to make informed purchasing decisions. However, the armchair economist in me believes that good regulation would simply make these social costs a part of the prices of things (i.e. government forcing the internalization of externalities.)

For example, things like toxicity and fire safety are hard factors for a consumer to consider, but good tort laws can push those hard-to-evaluate costs to the manufacturer. If anyone can sue a christmas tree maker/seller when a highly flammable plastic tree burns down a home , those companies will have to decide how to make their products safer and how much more to charge in order to cover legal costs. Instead of every consumer trying to navigate a whole mess of social implications, the legal system just raises the prices of the trees to reflect their true cost.

Carbon footprints are even easier: Carbon tax! If you tax carbon at the source (right where the coal is mined, right where the oil is extracted) then the extra cost is distributed throughout the web of consumption exactly as those costs move through the economy. Every carbon emission going into a tree (transport, petroleum-based plastic, disposal, etc.) is accurately reflected in the increased cost of the tree.

Of course, by “easy” I mean that these things are conceptually easy, not politically. The solutions are clear as long as one is dealing with a populace that believe that the environment and health are worth preserving, even if there is potential drag on our economy. And as obvious as that seems to me and most people that I know, there’s not consensus on that issue, nation-wide.

So, what to do in the meantime? Well, we should muddle through as the author of that SF Chronicle writer does. I just object to the exasperated tone of the piece. It conveys the sense that do-gooder consumers are engaged in a futile exercise, which they’re not. We can make better purchasing decisions, learning about where our products come from is a good in of itself, and raising awareness can lead to the systematic, political changes that will cause all economic players to do the right thing.

This is cool: Progressive auto insurance has a program where you can get discounts on your annual premiums, depending on how safely you drive. They send you a little sensor that you attach to your car’s diagnostics port. It tracks speed and acceleration every ten seconds (but, importantly, not location.)

At the end of the year, you view your data and decide whether or not you want to submit it for your discount, which ranges from 5%-25%. Check it out: TripSense.

It’s insurance that gives drivers another financial incentive to drive less and to drive more safely.

A new microfinance site just went live (Microplace) and it bears some similarity to Kiva, but with some important differences. I thought I’d outline those differences and point out that both offer an opportunity for ordinary people of privilege like ourselves to make a huge, sustained impact on the lives of the “working poor” around the world.

In a nutshell: Kiva is more personal, and some would say more interesting. Microplace, on the other hand, is safer and allows for larger, hassle-free loan-making. There’s a place for both. Kiva has made over $14 million in loans, already, breaking ground for average people to consider microfinance as part of their investment portfolios. It has connected tens of thousands of people all over the world who would never have any interaction, otherwise. Microplace, on the other hand, has the potential to grow the market enormously. Kiva’s $14 million (and growing exponentially) is nothing to sniff at, but Microplace could bring in many orders of magnitude more.

A potential Kiva investment

A potential Microplace investment

I have a longer explanation, after the jump; click through to read on.

I encourage everyone to try out Kiva and Microplace, as both make it really easy to invest. I’ve signed up for both, in fact, and will be putting a chunk of change in each. In a year or so, I’ll report back on my experiences.

Read the rest of this entry »

Three articles, after the jump. The headlines read: “China to invest $5bn in Congo,” “Alarm over China’s Congo deal,” and “China opens coffers for minerals.” For comparison, D.R. Congo’s GNP was less than $7bn, in 2005.

Screw the IMF and its conditional loans, hm?

(tnx to Desiree for the articles)

Read the rest of this entry »

From my favorite hedge fund manager/pundit/personality , Barry Ritzholtz:

[1] “Quite frankly, while I detest the intereference in the political process, I must admit to admiring the ingenuity and audacity of Goldman Sachs. As far as I can tell, either it was a brilliant ploy to impact the energy markets two months before elections, or the index is run by a bunch of naive, ham-fisted idiots, blissfully unaware of what they wrought so close to mid-term elections. So my own answer about energy manipulation turns on the question whether Goldman Sachs is a sharp collection of rocket scientists/traders, or a bunch-o-morons.”

[2] “Of course, the Fed does control money supply, and while it is understandable their providing additional liquidity during the rate tightening phase (i.e, more money supply as rates go higher) the most recent firehose of cash hitting the past few months since the pause is a bit harder to rationalize . . .”

What the second comment doesn’t explicitly state is that not only is the spate of money supply increases somewhat strange, it is coincident with the fact that last year the Fed announced it would stop explicitly reporting the overall money supply figure, known as ‘M3.’

Yes you can re-assemble this figure yourself, more or less, but if this regime has proven anything it is that only one or two levels of indirection are enough to plant reasonable doubt.

This is driving me nuts.