The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Then again, when "efficiency" is mentioned -- even in a discourse narrowly and artificially limited to dollars -- we have to ask "efficient at what or toward what end?" Capitalism, for example, is very efficient at concentrating wealth and ownership in the hands of a small elite, and at pillaging biotic and mineral resources in record time. Whether these are desirable goals is not really discussed; all we ever discuss is how much more efficient we can be in achieving them.
The fetishisation of Efficiency goes back to the early industrial revolution and the invention of machine-based mass production (though it was already established as early as corvee labour, thousands of years earlier, it took the engineering/mechanistic mindset of C19 to blossom into its full cultic prominence). The guy to google is Taylor (Frederick), who at first seemed to be helping the worker (who in those days was often paid by the piece or unit) to earn higher pay by getting more done in a day. But the principles of "Taylorism" rendered factory work more and more mindless, compartmentalised, and insanely boring; a win for the bosses, as this meant that the labour force could be nearly skill-less and completely replaceable/interchangeable (i.e. more machine-like and controllable, more "efficient" to manage and exploit). And so on.
If we started with the goal of making people's lives happy, satisfying, and interesting, we might have a whole different notion of efficiency -- call it "Efficacy" perhaps -- something more oriented to Quality than Quantity, and more oriented to the whole/organism rather than the rigorous analysis of decontextualised, atomised parts. But if one starts down this path one is generally accused of "sentiment," "luddism," anti-scientism etc -- despite the tantalising and maddening fact that almost all the recent advances in bio and neuro science come to the same conclusions: a) "it's more complicated than we thought," b) "it's far more interconnected than we thought," c) "actually, it seems to be nonlinear."
recommended reading: S Dehaene's "Reading in the Brain" -- for a glimpse of the massively parallel processing (not a linear assembly line as previously modelled by C19 thinkers) done by stacks of neurons as you and I read these little squiggly marks and render them into more-or-less shared meanings. not an assembly line, but a semi-anarchistic crowd of peers, far more similar to the traditional Japanese village economy than the Toyota plant. fascinating stuff.
The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 1 comment
by Oui - Nov 26 56 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 30 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 23 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 20 20 comments
by epochepoque - Nov 16 32 comments
by gmoke - Nov 15
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 13 43 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 21 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 304 comments
by Oui - Nov 2656 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2317 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2020 comments
by epochepoque - Nov 1632 comments
by gmoke - Nov 15
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 1343 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 9125 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 5139 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 3215 comments