bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry

Posted by Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/bigger-plans-bigger-little-mistakes-tp523782p523831.html

The physics analogies, like your saying we'd need to 'break static
friction', are possible to apply if done carefully to refer to real
things and not just to project attitudes and stuff.  I'd agree that in
changing habits, if that's the model for the moment, that 'breaking' the
old habit is necessary, but there may also be a 'potential well' to cut
through before adopting the new habit can begin for the community as a
whole.  It almost seems like a 'critical mass' of people cutting through
those barriers for doing something about global warming is well along,
and it'll be just a matter of a small extra push to unleash a tide of
change for all humanity (speaking somewhat optimistically).

The question I've been raising, though, is whether achieving a new habit
of improving efficiency is the appropriate change at all.   I'm quite
sure it's a blind alley.   You may inspire everyone to go down it, but
it doesn't go anywhere.  


Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:01 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes -
> Electron Symmetry
>
>
> Robert Howard wrote:
> >
> > /MARCUS: ?I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's
> cooperation.?/
> >
> >  
> >
> > My argument was:
> >
> > Case A: If it DOES require every USA citizen to cooperate, then it
> > WILL require every other country to cooperate. It?s a
> ?global? issue!
> >
> > Case B: If it DOES NOT require every other country to
> cooperate, then
> > it WILL NOT require every USA citizen to cooperate.
> >
> >  
> >
> > (Case A) requires big USA government?s coercive power both
> foreign and
> > domestic with threats of fines, wars, and sanctions.
> >
> > (Case B) requires neither. Only those USA citizens that
> cooperate are
> > required.
> >
> >  
> >
> The U.S. system of government doesn't require the consent and
> cooperation of all citizens.  Only a majority and sometimes not even
> that -- Bush was elected even though he lost by more than
> half a million
> votes -- or Bush's recent veto of the war bill and so on.  It was
> designed that way in part to make it possible for leaders to
> be agile in
> situations like this.
>
> In the immediate term, breaking static friction is a first step.  One
> way to do that is with state sponsored socialism, e.g. New Deal scale
> funding to deploy partial remedies, like large ongoing tax breaks for
> buyers of PHEV hybrids, cellulosic ethanol & electric cars,
> and however
> many billions of taxpayer dollars it takes to bring alternative
> technologies for low CO2, non-fossil fuel to market.   (Then
> come things
> like city-sized CO2 scrubbing/sequestration systems, massive solar
> deployments, new fission reactors, etc.)
>
> Those that can't be convinced that catastrophes like Katrina may be
> increasing due to CO2, or that major coastal cities could suffer
> billions in damage due to climate change, can at least be
> motivated to
> rationalize the costs as a national security benefit.  The U.S. could
> forget about expensive coercion of middle east governments
> for the sake
> of the oil reserves.  Compared to the things the Bush
> administration has
> gotten away with, this ought to be an easy sell.
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>