Carbon Tax vs emissions trading vs direct action

It is hard to discuss tax policy, or indeed anything without agreeing on premises.
There is an equivalence between a carbon tax and emissions trading with a fixed price. There is also an equivalence between a carbon tax with a variable price that is set to match the market price of emissions in an international emissions trading scheme, and being part of that emissions trading scheme.

Any scheme can be "gamed" in the sense that the European scheme allocated or grandfathered too many credits, to appease emitters and to bribe them to get in the scheme, and then allowed financial pressures of the debt crisis to further water down the scheme.

In Australia, the scheme seems scheduled to be gamed by lobbying from industrials for the tax to be scrapped. Either way, instead of acceptance, and long term plans to avoid the price efficiently by moving away from carbon intensive industries, plans are on hold on a wait and see with the hedge on what one can bet the future scheme to be. Hold back plans for renewables in the hope of a fat grant from the new "direct action" plan, rather than do what makes sense now, with the energy prices as they are with the carbon tax and assuming they will stay at the relative level.

Avoid the tax by switching to low carbon, or avoid the tax by switching the Government? I prefer the first. Grudging acceptance that the tax may effectively be there for a while. Even the thought that it will be gone soon changes the behaviour of industrials to bet on a low effective carbon price.

Show me the metabolism, marconomics, part 3

"Kauffman is chiefly concerned with reproduction as the defining feature of life. He makes only a superficial discussion of metabolism that does not consider its central thermodynamic requirements. But ultimately, metabolism is what is most important."

This reminded me of an "alien life" forum that was discussing, among other things, how we would recognise life as we don't know it. There was a consensus that at a minimum, reproduction AND metabolism would need to be observed. However, when we are talking about abiogenesis, the conundrum is more about how they have to simultaneously come about. Meaningful reproduction is impossible without metabolism to generate the work energy that reproduces something. Metabolism is pretty useless if the system that metabolises is a one off that cannot be reproduced faithfully and it's important features "locked away" for future use. The blueprint of "the system" doesn't need metabolism to exist, it needs metabolism to perform work and reproduce.

"Without petrol, the most splendidly engineered automobile will just sit there. Without a plausible metabolism, the most elegant net of autocatalytic reactions is an empty exercise in symbol manipulation."

Why can't a car be considered a living thing for the purpose of this exercise? For that matter why can't a primitive stone axe head? They perform work and can be reproduced. The system graph and energy transfers is what is important in defining what metabolism and reproduction is, not our experience of how extremely complex things that we have studied intimately perform these same system graph characteristics. Thus things like, "mass flux", "high energy flux", "vesicles", "Proto-metabolism" etc. are not particular requirements when talking about the "system" before life as we know it. The energy graph is important for when metabolism is occurring, and that the system is locked away with reproducible features when the energy/reactants source is depleted. Thus if an axe head lies in the ground undisturbed for millions of years, it would be easy to reproduce. If it was being constantly bombarded by energy flux, ie. people using it, it would just wear away until it was no longer useful. Thus, an extremely encapsulated system, with persistent, naturally reproducible features is more relevant than looking at the amount of energy flux a motorcar needs to keep going, and applying it to the needs of an axe head.

"(1) Through a long and complicated process of prebiotic development containing all the most interesting parts of the story of the origin of life.

(2) As a system created by someone or something.

I don’t intend this as an argument in favour of intelligent design [see definition 1], still less of Intelligent Design [see definition 2]. Ockham’s razor suggests we should stick with explanation (1) unless we should find some very compelling evidence for (2). At any rate, the essential requirements of the pre-biotic processes leading to life based on the chemistry we know are going to be the same as the requirements of pre-biotic processes leading to life based on different chemistry."

Ockham s razor is a lie perpetrated by scientists to make out they have gnosis when they have none. Anyway, have you considered dust cloud life? Or plasma physics life?

We don't know that life that could create chemical life is based on chemistry. We have no gnosis on the requirements of life that may have generated biochemical life through an evolutionary prebiotic process of design. All we have is human experience of design as an evolutionary process with intelligent input. The intelligence is not enough to design something complicated from scratch, and thus the sequence of precedents from transistor to computer may be accessible to historians a million years into the future. Equally, whether intelligently designed or not, we should have confidence in the possibility of precedent biological life "designs" for us to discover.

"What I am arguing is that both the ‘RNA world’ and the ‘Protein world’ are historically late phenomena, and that the critical events for the origin of life lie much deeper."

I absolutely agree with this.

"There is no reason to expect that living systems today preserve the same chemistry of the first living systems. "

I absolutely *disagree* with this. Evolution and evolutionary design processes build on what is known to work. No point changing from silicon to something else.

Show me the Metabolism, Marcomony Part 2.

"What are the requirements a catalytic system of complex polymers (CSCP) must have in order to be relevant to the origin of life?
The CSCP must be secured from the overwhelming tendency of matter and energy to become more randomly distributed in the universe. "

Already here we can see the erosive characteristics of parsimony in action starting to create poisoned fruit. Having rejected Kauffman's model of the origin of life based on CSCP due to not being able to demonstrate metabolism or how it would self generate, it becomes the assumed system for the rest of the post. I would change it to thus: The CSCP or whatever other system relevant to the start of life, must be secured...

In fact when I read it, I had automatically added that to the sentence because a CSCP has a vanishingly small chance of being a descriptive model of what actually hapened. Thus, I agreed with the sentence with a proviso that it does not validate CSCP in any way as a transitionary proto life form.

Thus Marcomony would dictate that we look this as a systems problem rather than as a CSCP problem.

The minimum requirement from a systems perspective is that energy finds its way in, and that the inside can be made less random by making the outside more random. Although that does require at least some "food" or reactants matter to get in and some "waste" or products matter to get out, the minimalist in me is saying that the in could be mainly light, and the out mainly heat, as something non-living that could exist in nature.


Thus a CSCP may or may not be something that comes between non-life and life, or may have been skipped for something that could actually happen, rather than being a wish myth.

When I saw the diagram, I got all excited. When I read about specific chemistry, I got all confused. Not because I didn't understand, but because I was thinking purely in abstract terms of the following.

Condition 1: An Edge.
Condition 2:A Proto-metabolism.
Condition 3: A Selectively Permeable Edge.
Condition 4: A Complexifiable Proto-Metabolism.

Systems we have designed ourselves with a great deal of effort.


 in all this, all it had proved to me that CSCP to do all this is impossible in terms of all the pieces that are required to just come together for no reason.

This is why, about this time last year, I had decided that a comet could provide the required edge to the system, and a catalytic species X would be the resultant more complex, less random thing being generated within the comet(s). The comet surface makes a natural, non-living edge.

Of course, we will have opportunities to see what is in comets now, as an indication of what may have been happening 4 billion years ago.

Show Me the Metabolism, Marcomony! Part one

This is in response to History of life posts by my arch nemesis Herr Fellows of Parsimony fame.

"My thesis is that the network of catalytic polymers and substrates that Kauffman postulates as an initial self-organising complex system which can give rise to more lifelike systems is so inordinately complex and unlikely that it in no way addresses the crucial problem of the origin of life."

Completely agree. I would even extend that to say that it is probably impossible.

"Any chemist would ask: 'What is driving this cycle of reactions? Where is the energy coming from? What is preventing this system from dissipating?'

There is no such thing as 'Order for Free'. That is the Law. If you want order at point A, you need to dump your disorder at points not-A. Should anyone claim there is such a thing as 'Order for Free', let them be unto you even as the homeopaths and the creationists."

 

Absolutely. It is a very contrived system that is required, and a plausible natural mechanism is required that would probably  generate it (Not *possibly* generate it - it needs a contrived repeatable mechanism that we would think hah! that just could work if I could repeat the conditions precisely)

 

Metabolism is the key. My thought is that any systems which generates copies of something is showing metabolism anyway. You can see energy being burned in the suns in the sky and emanating from the hot cores of planets and dumped randomly into the rest of the universe. There are not just a few planets and suns - They have imperfect copies of themselves all over the universe. It is a loose use of metabolism and reproduction, but the universe is full of things that make their outside more random and are reproduced somehow.

 

 

Grid based access vs grid independent systems

I started thinking about this entry ages ago when I had an epiphany and I felt that it could be proven that a speed/price/throughput advantage would exist for "fibre" over "wireless". (Conversely, a flexibility and ability to function when the grid is "down", advantage would always exist the other way).

The basis of the proof is basically that any imaginable technology that improves speed over wireless electromagnetic radiation, would be applicable to wired electromagnetic radiation in the same proportion of improvement.

In the case of broadband, at one extreme is Fibre to the Home and the other extreme is Satellite broadband. Wi-Fi is closer to the FTTH side, then there is 3G style wireless broadband that relies on the mobile network which is connected via mainly fibre, and satellite, which can work even if the whole countries internet is down, theoretically. This doesn't really prove that FTTH is worth pursuing, because it is a tenable argument (although I would dispute it) that wireless will improve to the point that it is fast and cheap enough for everything we find important.

Back in Uni, it was proposed that solid state storage improvements were happening faster than hard drive improvements and could overtake them, and although a USB stick is enough for most things, portable hard drives still hold more and are used a lot, the storage advantage of hard drives is constant, due to the solid state improvements being equally applicable to hard drive storage.

Similar grid vs grid independent comparisons are common - road vs helicopter, grid power vs home generators, rail vs aeroplane, piped gas vs cylinders, water tanks vs dam & pipes, private dam storages vs large scale dams for irrigation.

With this in mind, simple goal based arithmetic could decide the balance between grid based and grid independent systems.

For Photo Voltaic electricity generation, I think we have got it backwards, which is why grid parity is not served well with thousands (or millions) of individual installations. If a household is after energy independence, a PV system with a significant amount of battery storage (batteries suitable for an electric car?) is actually very useful and would be a boon for extended power outages (like after Yasi). Because home PV installations are optimised to feed power back into the grid, they are quite useless as independent power sources, compared to diesel generators.

However, if we want PV power to compete with Coal or Gas, we need economies of scale of large scale PV based power stations.

Marco's Razor & Marcomony

Occam's Razor states that "entities should not be multiplied uneccessarily".When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

In science, parsimony is preference for the least complex explanation for an observation. This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses.

Marco's razor states that in cases of imperfect and only circumstantial evidence, entities should be added/multiplied to obtain hypotheses that explain the most unusual aspects of the limited circumstantial evidence available.

Marcomony is a preference for explanations which explain the most about the variability of observations, even if the observations fit within a simpler explanation.

These rules of thumb are ideal for game theory in the analysis of geopolitics. These are the reasons:
1) There really are more entities in these situations. By introducing "representative" entities one at a time to the simplest models, more of the circumstancial evidence can make a best fit.

2)With some entities actively keeping secrets and there being interdependencies more of the information is partial/uncertain.

For game theory in the analysis of geopolitics eg. the Israel-Palestine conflict is simplified to a two entity game in game theory and most arm-chair strategy discussions. A simple addition of a third entity keeps the overall strategy simple enough for the layperson to examine and analyse while explaining better the unusual aspects of the conflict (in this case, the multi-generational longevity of the conflict, the lack of success from mediators)

In evolutionary science occam's razor seems to have been liberally used to simplify explanation of evolution. These have evolved to a raft of "rules", such as the Weismann Barrier, Central Dogma of evolution etc. which are taken as gospel within scientific papers. Challenges to these "rules" are taken as challenges to the overall theory of evolution, which they need not be.

The main motivation with these improved rules of thumb is to:
a) Avoid cliched science such that researchers do not truthify the oversimplifications that are the norm in the reporting of science.
b) Avoid the human instinct to extend the presumption of innocence/truth-telling to dicussions irrelevant to the enforcement or judgement of law.


Another example is the choice between exogenesis and geogenesis theories. All we have as evidence that pertains to this is circumstancial and imperfect. The usual rules of thumb dictate that geogenesis is the least complex explanation. There is no real "data" to fit into a model, but exogenesis explains more of the unusual aspects of the properties of dna based life.

Funding of Universities

Chris Fellows writes in the Australian:

I KEEP reading reports ("UNE legal bill rises to $1.3 million", HES online, May 29) that the University of New England receives a larger proportion of its income from the federal Government than any other Australian university as if this were a bad thing.

A public university should be accountable to the public and align its activities with the public interest. This is most likely to happen if it is funded by the citizens of Australia through our federal Government because he who pays the piper calls the tune. Every week I read in the HES stories about universities in trouble because their investments have tanked, or overseas student numbers have dropped, or a sweet deal with industry has led to a conflict of interest.

It would not be in the national interest if the federal Government provided 50 per cent of the navy's funding and forced it to obtain the rest by offering cruises and hiring ships out to foreign countries. Equally, it is not in Australia's interest to make public tertiary education - a critical part of our national infrastructure - dependent on narrow sectors of the community, or overseas customers, whose goals may not align with those of the nation.

Marconomically speaking, of course, I disagree with the specifics of the assertion, that universities are better for the country if they are run by the public purse, while at the same time agreeing with the gist that "Infrastructure" should be publicly funded.

The question is, which aspects of a university are "infrastructure" (Long term investments which benefits a lot of people, with no easy way to charge the people that benefit), and which aspects are products and service that people need and/or desire at an individual level, are willing to pay for, and private enterprises can make money from it by providing it the best way?

The infrastructure aspect of a University (Buildings, utilities, roads, long term equipment, general research projects etc.) ought to be funded publicly, and the Product/service aspects( gaining qualifications suitable for employment, industry specific research and development etc.) ought to be funded privately.

The private enterprises ought to be charged a rental and or tax for the infrastructure aspects which they use to sell the products or services which they charge for.

This issue screams that Universities should split off private arms, and look at divesting the aspects that are better handled by private enterprise.

Marconomics

I have defined marconomics.

Not too pretentious?

Marconomic Policy wish-list

in no particular order.

Nation-wide water trading.

Early family payments for pregnancy registrations.

Easy Aus work visa/residency/citizenship pathway for all pacific island state residents including Hawaii.

Tradeable whale-hunting quotas.

Electoral Math - US vs Australia

The esteemed Dr. Clam and I had discussed the differences between the electoral math between the US and Australia and Dr Clam came up with something I couldn't have said better myself:(context here)

Preferential voting and proportional voting in the senate makes minor and single-issue groups not associated with a major political party much more important and successful in Australia. Third parties can play a constructive role,not just act as spoilers to cause civil wars. If there had been just one Democrat candidate in 1860 , that extremist yokel would never have gotten in with 39.8% of the vote.(Australia wins!)

*On the other hand, compulsory voting reduces the importance of single-issue groups associated with major political parties, which are valued in the US because they can get out the voter base. This means single-issue groups have less influence on the policies of the major parties here, and the parties better reflect the mainstream. (Australia wins again!)

* Finally, the US has been comprehensively gerrymandered on the state and federal level so that there are very few marginal seats, and parties can concentrate their resources even more disproportionately. (Australia, once again, wins!)

Basically, the jist of point two is that candidates on the extreme ideological edge of the major parties are an asset in the US, while they would have absolutely no chance in Australia (and would have to try for minor placings in the senate)- the mainstream would eat them up for breakfast.
Thus Sarah Palin, by dint of her being more of a wing ideologically compared to the mainstream, appears to be a blunderous choice (as it would be, in Australia). Any political commentator with any nous for the US electoral mathematics would realise that the mainstream just has to not hate her enough to be bothered voting against her.
I've been meaning to add an entry in Principia Marconomica about electoral maths, as I have done for a few other tidbits of late, the jist of it being that it doesn't matter so much that elections give spurious results, but that in the long run the electoral system is self-adjusting and stable.

It's the Balance duh

When raising children, there is so many competing obsessions related to the child's well being that it really is a minefield. eg:

Food health - obsess that foods they eat are the healthiest possible.
Fitness health - make sure these kids get enough excercise.
Dental health - make sure that teeth are brushed, water is fluoridated etc.
Sun safety - sun exposure between birth and 20 yo means high risk for melanoma.
Money management - kids must learn to manage money early so they don't risk debt traps etc.
Social learning - obsess with kids able to interact one on one and in group situations.
Stranger danger - recognise dangers with strangers.
Abusive relationships - recognise dangers with non-strangers.
Academic learning - achieve as well as possible academically.
Clean room - learn how to manage one's own space tidily and usefully.
Smoking/drugs - Avoid the trap of getting hooked and counter peer pressure with solid knowledge.
Alcohol - moderation.
Disease - Up to date immunizations and good hygene.
Road safety - Bike helmets, seat belts, alertness.
Swimming safety - avoid the toddler killer of drownings.

So often one sees children of parents obsessing in one (say academia) and so obviously has ignored another (say, weight gain). The examples I have seen are endless, and some such as fitness are notoriously hard to balance with others such as sun safety for instance. It is quite easy to see as an outsider of the failures of these obsessions, often with some being overdone and others seemingly completely ignored. I urge everyone to aim for the balance - see which ones your children are weak in and concentrate on those for a while. Are we spending too much effort on diminishing returns? Walk the fine line, dear friends.

Marconomic Theory of Regressive Evolution

I will start with a generalised genetic disproof of inheritance of acquired characteristics from Wikipedia.Genetic disproof
There are many formulations of the genetic disproof, but all have roughly the same structure as the following:

Acquired traits do not affect an organism's genome.
Only the genome is passed to the offspring.
Therefore, acquired traits cannot be passed to the offspring.
While this proof may be logically valid, it suffers from the material fallacy of begging the question, since no one who believes in inheritance of acquired characters would believe both assumptions.


My theory throws these assumptions away and replaces them with this observation. The inheritance of acquired characteristics is not evident because the genome has embedded within it thousands of generations of experience as to what genetic traits are worthwile and those that aren't. In *general*, genetic mutations mimicking acquired traits do *NOT* make the organism any *fitter* to survive in nature.

Instead, the following rules of regressive evolution apply:

-Genetic mutations in offspring are a result of stresses on the parent(s).
-Mutations have a directed element that depends on the exact stress involved.
-The directed element is programmed into the genetic code via association between the stress which is acting as a trigger, and the mutation which has been "proven" to be appropriate to survive better under new conditions indicated by the stress.
-The strength of association between the trigger and the mutation is entirely dependent on the reliability of the trigger being an indication that the mutation is appropriate to the new "environment".
-Many of the mutations concerned are simply switching on or off complex functions that are permanently programmed in the genetic code whether they are active or not.
-Certain combination of stresses may create combinations of mutations without precedent in itself, but each mutation would have been "field tested" individually in distant or more recent history.

Examples that should be quite clear-cut:

Darkness stress: Species adapted to cave conditions or permanently underground (moles etc.) are uncannily blind whereas their closest relatives have full sight. The stress of being in darkness your whole life would cause a considerable proportion of your progeny to have genetic vision defects - all other things being equal.

Wetness/dryness stress: Kamerrers experiments on the midwife toad (Chapter 7 Panda's thumb) had some merit. Clearly, one must separate the selection pressure from the stress trigger to prove the point that mutations to switch back on genes that helped in water are not evident without the wetness stress. Experiments need to be formulated with this in mind. River-courses changing their path makes sudden changes in local environments.

Radiation stress: In Earth's history every single large scale event would have radiation associated with it. Volcanoes erupting, asteroid impacts, solar activity, and possible magnetic field fluctuations would all send rare radioactive elements in the atmosphere or increased radiation. Is it any wonder then that the most obvious, largest scale mutations are caused by radiation? It is a clear signal that radical mutations in any direction might cause some to survive better.

"Regressive evolution" as a term has been almost exclusively used in describing reduction of features, such as in the loss of eyesight and pigmentation in cave dwelling fish. In "Marconomic" terms, reduction in features is also the clearest example of it in nature. Switching off something that was there appears a backwards or downwards move, while the re-switching on of a previously inactive feature appears to be either a leap or not a truly new feature, depending on whether it had been observed before in related species. Philosophically speaking, backwards, downwards and leaps are artificial concepts based on thinking of evolution (falsely) as a ladder rather than the reality of it being a "bush". Switching on or off of features that are then passed on is adaptive either way. Thus I group losses and gains of such features in the same "regressive" boat.

I call it "regressive" evolution because the process almost always borrows tricks that have developed in the past with selection pressures optimising them. Switching them off saves resources when conditions dictate they are unnecessary. However, they are there for when they are required, and perhaps almost all of the evident "faster" evolutionary processes have borrowed perfectly working genetic tricks and combined them in new ways.

At first glance regressive evolution is not really evolution because it never introduces truly *new* changes. However there is such a large number of possible combinations of trigger-responsive genes that the number of species in the Earth is dwarfed by it. If there is a million genes that can be switched on or off depending on triggers, that makes two to the power of a million possible combinations. Virtually all of them will be truly new changes. Also triggers will almost always produce a spectrum of mutations - This is because the future cannot be predicted perfectly. Chance, probability and statistics is a big part of the process. Truly random mutations, however are almost certainly an evolutionary dead-end.

So I have said that in *general*, genetic mutations mimicking acquired traits do *NOT* make the organism any *fitter* to survive in nature. However, this begs the question: Is there any *specific* genetic mutations that do? (Mimick acquired traits that triggered the mutation)?

The trait/mutation would have to fit the following conditions:
A) The organism must be in a state of life or death stress or reproduction-challenging stress(1)
B) The "situation" must be very analogous to situations repeated in the genealogical history (2).
C) The mutation must clearly help progeny in analogous stressful situations more than just being shown/trained/helped by the parent(s) etc. (3)
D) The disadvantages of the mutation must be clearly outweighed by the advantages given assumed environmental constraints. (Needs a clear cost/benefit advantage)

(1) It is not enough, for instance, that a giraffe stretches their neck reaching for higher food. For a trigger situation, the giraffe must see other giraffes dying of starvation, be short in food itself, and endure the frustration of seeing lots of leaves just out of reach. (Using a well known Lamarckian example) If it isn't a life or death situation, the mutation will be both unecessary and resource-depleting.

(2)The "knowledge" associated with the trigger must be on firm statistical ground. The trigger will never be something only associated with proximal individual adaptation. For instance one 1930's experiment devised to investigate inheritance would chop of an insect's antenna that generally grows back. Any number of generations "experience" would not offset the natural experience of the insect, which is - that a more ideal regrowth of an antenna is unnecessary for survivability and reproduction in any conceivable natural environment. Even if it was - chopping off an antenna would not be an indicative trigger.

(3) It is tempting with certain features, to assume that if strength in one arm is important to survivability, and a person strengthens that arm for a greater part of their life to suit their job, and that their children are likely to have the same constraints - that a genetic mutation that would strengthen that arm without as much training would have evolutionary merit. However, if the feature is being passed on to the child by training from the parents, and very few are dying due the the arm being too weak, a mutation may be less reliable than just letting the parents train their children specifically.

A Rundown of evidence that supports my theories:

1) Experiments show that general mutation rates increase as a result of stress.
2) Humans and bacteria have some parts of their genome that are extremely similar. Even though these same parts are quite resistant to random mutations (ie. random mutations do no noticeable change to the organism). As with most parts of the genome, the specific functions of these segments are unknown.
3) Natural selection needs mutations to select from. Stressful situations lend themselves to particular mutations. This article lays out a clear example of adaptive mutation. Because almost no research is looking for similar adaptive mutations, it is unclear whether this is the exception or the rule.
4) My theories do NOT rule out random aspects to the process. Genes that *Are* under constant selective pressure will have (seemingly random) mutations and will use natural selection as a process of refinement, quality control and mutations that don't affect the purpose of the gene will build up in that gene over time -*at well researched rates*. Selective pressure is the error-correcting mechanism in this case and certain critical sequences can stay the same for Billions of years by this mechanism. This fits in perfectly well with my theories.
5) The apparent extension of this randomness into virtually all genes fits the data quite nicely. However, this should not rule out that the apparent randomness overall, is due to the randomness of the factors that cause mutation triggers. The orthodoxy is that the apparent randomness rules out environmental feedback causality of most of the overall apparent mutations. As pointed out in (3) there is some clear counter-examples to the orthodoxy.

Marconomic Analysis of the state of play in Climate change

In Principia Marconomica
principle #2, I have stated that perception is not reality, and having a quick look at Wikipedia's Determining political spectra, the climate change state of play is that people's views are highly correlated on this, thus a one dimensional line is very apt to describe it. Principle #2 states that it is very likely that none of the points on the line reflect reality. The perception of the majority, including those that are uncertain, is that if the "alarmist" is right about one thing (say rapid increasing temperature prediction) that they will also be right about a correlated view (Disaster will befall the Earth). Similarly for "denialist" views.
Politics is certain to use this line to influence certain peer groups as units to obtain votes; activists are going to try to influence individuals to join their peer such as to increase their numbers and weight as efficiently as possible.
The unfortunate thing is that a set of views that is without peer almost always gets misunderstood, ignored or forever questioned. What we need is a set of scientists and other professionals that is unburdened by their peers or lobby groups. I just wonder whether "Peer review" leads to "peer pressure" when it comes to the spin on scientific research.

Education - Nationalise or privatise?

My simple rule of thumb is: that for the longer the term of the investment (before being profitable), the further it should be towards nationalisation on the continuum. Pre-school children are basically a very long term investment before what they have learnt makes an impact on society. University students, however, in a few short years, can go from being smart to being an asset to an employer, society or whatever. Therefore, the efficiency of competitive private finance is critical for universities, but almost meaningless for kindergarten. This is why I think "The Economist" is correct when it states that governments should deregulate and privatise higher education.

Marconomics predicts longterm failure to reduce CO2 emissions

Going straight from my axioms,
- The judgement on policy is essentially which country does well in a typical competitive environment in the ideal where the policy concerned is the only point of difference.

Policies which involve ignoring, lying about, or failing to meet targets will put countries at a competitive advantage economically. Geopolitics, for good and ill, is optimised such that any policy which gives a distinct competitive advantage to any country, becomes policy in competing countries. The average citizen is completely oblivious but complicit, just by their own cost-benefit analysis in their own head. This process for say fifty years into the future is pretty much immune to global targets of any sort. The trick is to globally constrain the economy such that "doing well" CO2 reduction wise, is going to be "doing well" money-wise. This is just not going to happen without a global government with teeth. A global government with teeth is not compatible with the benefits gained from the competitive aspect of nations. Basically for the future 50 years or so, we will all be talking about CO2 global targets, but have no chance of meeting them. Regional CO2 targets will occasionally be met, but only by accident of say economic ruin, or accident of geography (eg. Soviet breakup, France's love of Nuclear/hydro)

Marconomics

Dr. Clam, quite flatteringly suggested future Giant robot leaders would be well versed in "marconomics" and therefore avoid the pitfalls of democracies and Holy Roman empires. Somewhere in between Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, is the space where policy matters. A good starting point would be the privatisation/nationalisation axioms. Good Marconomic policy is choosing policies that are shown to work in our grand global experiment that is the rise of nations. Also to have an experimental mindset about new policies.