Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
thanks for the interrsting debate. I am with rdf (I agree that the concept of monopsony is fundamental today) and DeAnander/Izzy on this one.

I'd like to also link Migeru's comments about the lack of resilience to our earlier discussions on hysteresis and irreversible effects (i.e. - after WalMart has "stripmined" a city  and leaves, the old stores do not re-open - there is a net, permanent effect)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 25th, 2006 at 06:37:17 PM EST
just briefly Jerome I would like to connect this to complexity and diversity as essential traits of healthy biotic systems;  the loss of complexity is an entropic process i.e. is irreversible in that the status quo ante can never be restored.  over time a new complex order may evolve to fill the ravaged niche, but the original functioning system cannot be reproduced.  a renewal or renaissance of small town American culture may happen, but the new version will not replicate what was lost.  in some ways this might not be such a terible thing, as some of what was lost was not so wonderful, but there is also the issue of the enormous difficulty of recovering from the stripmined high-entropy state.

loss of complexity (monoculture, reduction of species count per acre) reduces overall biotic productivity and simultaneously reduces resistance and resilience in face of pests, adverse weather, etc.  this seems to be true whether the ecosystem is a reef, a farm, a town, a city, a compute cluster, a power grid, or an economy.  

monoculture equals increasing risk of single point catastrophic failure with poor/costly/slow recovery prospects.

the lesson I derive from this is that Wal*Mart is inherently a bad thing, and so are company towns.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Jan 25th, 2006 at 08:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I will mention this Gaia theory again. It basically says that beside evolution of organisms there has been evolution of the Gaia "superorganism". The Gaia takes care of healthy environment. Does Gaia also have methods to deal with occasional parasites?

Gaia theory is criticized along the lines that individual organisms or species cannot cooperate since "altruism" is not beneficial to them; organisms waste resourses only for themselves. But if the uncompromisingly selfish behaviour would be optimal, then all species would behave like locust:

Very few species have the luxury of eating up everything they come accross. Most species probably have instinctive or genetic stops not to destroy their own environment. After all, surviving throughout long millenia means not only overcoming stuggle to establish your own niche, but also surviving your own success. The Earth had seen many species that "discovered" unbounded success, and perhaps many of them learned to control their vitality so to keep livable environment.

by das monde on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 02:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right on, De Anander and dasMonde.

This morning I woke up with an idea for a diary Against Efficiency. We'll see whether it happens.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 06:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One argument that intrigued me a while ago against the "reform" of the French State to make it more effective and reactive was that the role of the State was also to introduce slowness, and ponderation into some decisions, and thus inefficiency was not necessarily a bad thing.

There is also a series of short novels by Frank Herbert where the hero comes from the Sabotage Bureau (or something) which was created to fight the super efficient bureaucracy made possible by a special kind a aliens, by sabotaging it and making it work slower. It sounds strange, but there is, as always with Herbert, some very interesting background and thought involved.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 06:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember being struck in a sci-fi novel by Nancy Kress where she described a special GM grass that was the most effective biosystem to transform nutrients into organic matter (itself), and was thus an incredibly energetic crop. The problem was of course that this grass, if left alone, would have taken over the whole planet (except a few large trees wit hvery deep roots) and killed every single other crop.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 06:44:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series