I had described the US's strategy of entrenching democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq as a strategy to squeeze the political system in Iran to breaking point. This appears to be happening. Together with the demographics of Iran (very high proportion of restless youth), this makes for a country ripe for revolution. I can see that the revolution will be repressed, at least for this electoral cycle, but the next few years will be characterised by:
a) Continually deteriorating economy.
b) Continually defiant hardline leadership.
c) Gradually increasing exodus of population to neighbouring democracies.
These sorts of things will continue to make the current theocracy decreasingly tenable, in the medium term.
Possible long term results are a failed/failing state, or a transfer to a fully fledged democracy or dictatorship/permanent state of emergency.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Light of other days 2
Just a few quick notes as I pass the half way stage of the book....
- Clarke is still a genius both as a visionary and a writer. Predictions such as a financial meltdown in London at the end of this decade, and the prediction that the model of journalism would be almost completely compromised by citizen journalism over the internet - have come true pretty well as described in the novel written in 2000.
- There is a lot of liberal use of what I would call "cliched predictions" regarding catastrophic results of global warming for instance and wars labelled as "resource wars". I am giving Clarke the benefit of the doubt with these as pretty much any and all conceivable future weather disasters, and wars will be tenably describable as results of global warming and resource disputes respectively. Being that a complete lack of wars and weather disasters is extremely unlikely, the cliches are likely to stick anyway regardless of other probable causes.
- I keep comparing the scale and timing of technology predictions in this novel to those of the Colour Mars series of Kim Stanley Robinson. Interestingly, Mars becomes Terra-formed in the colour-mars series in a timescale in which put to the "light of other days"(LOOD) would allow humanity to have large scale migration in time to escape Armageddon of the Wormwood - something which is ruled out as a possibility in LOOD's. I have to read and see if this changes by the end of the book.
- On the one hand I fear that the wormhole technology as described with seeming easy extensibility in distance, time, minitiuarization, resolution, cost effectiveness, verifiability and unfakeability is unrealistic as all good technologies have limitations or meet up with diminishing returns in some of these directions due to one or another inconvenient law of physics/economics.
- On the other hand my basic beliefs about information and its relation to crime game theory leads me to believe that even at the most complete imaginable level of information accessibility (as is approaching in this book) by anyone, there will be moral hazard ie. potential for damaging/serious crime.
- I cannot adequately demonstrate this.
- Clarke is still a genius both as a visionary and a writer. Predictions such as a financial meltdown in London at the end of this decade, and the prediction that the model of journalism would be almost completely compromised by citizen journalism over the internet - have come true pretty well as described in the novel written in 2000.
- There is a lot of liberal use of what I would call "cliched predictions" regarding catastrophic results of global warming for instance and wars labelled as "resource wars". I am giving Clarke the benefit of the doubt with these as pretty much any and all conceivable future weather disasters, and wars will be tenably describable as results of global warming and resource disputes respectively. Being that a complete lack of wars and weather disasters is extremely unlikely, the cliches are likely to stick anyway regardless of other probable causes.
- I keep comparing the scale and timing of technology predictions in this novel to those of the Colour Mars series of Kim Stanley Robinson. Interestingly, Mars becomes Terra-formed in the colour-mars series in a timescale in which put to the "light of other days"(LOOD) would allow humanity to have large scale migration in time to escape Armageddon of the Wormwood - something which is ruled out as a possibility in LOOD's. I have to read and see if this changes by the end of the book.
- On the one hand I fear that the wormhole technology as described with seeming easy extensibility in distance, time, minitiuarization, resolution, cost effectiveness, verifiability and unfakeability is unrealistic as all good technologies have limitations or meet up with diminishing returns in some of these directions due to one or another inconvenient law of physics/economics.
- On the other hand my basic beliefs about information and its relation to crime game theory leads me to believe that even at the most complete imaginable level of information accessibility (as is approaching in this book) by anyone, there will be moral hazard ie. potential for damaging/serious crime.
- I cannot adequately demonstrate this.
Friday, June 05, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Light of Other Days
Have started to read this book by Arthur C Clarke and some other guy. Like with "The God Delusion", I had some preconceived ideas regarding its main gist, as outlined by reviews on Wikipedia etc.
For instance this assertion: "Crime would cease to exist with the availability of "worm-cams", because no-one could avoid being watched"
is one which I would like to poke holes through.
But I must admit, Clarke, unlike Dawkins, is a visionary even in my strictest Marconomic sense, and his assertions are unfalsifiable in the way they are laid out as part of a science fiction novel anyway; so as much as I am preparing arguments that demonstrate the holes in his, I am being swayed in equal measure by other aspects of the novel.
For instance this assertion: "Crime would cease to exist with the availability of "worm-cams", because no-one could avoid being watched"
is one which I would like to poke holes through.
But I must admit, Clarke, unlike Dawkins, is a visionary even in my strictest Marconomic sense, and his assertions are unfalsifiable in the way they are laid out as part of a science fiction novel anyway; so as much as I am preparing arguments that demonstrate the holes in his, I am being swayed in equal measure by other aspects of the novel.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Sydney Thoughts
Here I am in Sydney, glad that I don't live here. Townsville Brass is doing quite well here at the Nationals and you can see the results after sunday afternoon.
I was going to pick the post that I have mulled over the most that had not got any comments and my New year stuff was the most recent. I will have to look further afield for more.
08/08/08 still marks for me the end of the good times in the same way the stockmarket crash of October 1929 marked the end of the roaring twenties, and the start of the slide into deep recession/deflation/increasing instability.
I was going to pick the post that I have mulled over the most that had not got any comments and my New year stuff was the most recent. I will have to look further afield for more.
08/08/08 still marks for me the end of the good times in the same way the stockmarket crash of October 1929 marked the end of the roaring twenties, and the start of the slide into deep recession/deflation/increasing instability.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Democracy - a counterexample
Back a few entries where I was discussing democracy, the general assumption is that many people who are able to independently check policy before voting on it will more likely get the right decision than a particular individual or expert could.
The corollary is that the more democracy and the more direct the democracy, the better general decisions will be made.
A counter-example to this corollary is immigration and trade policy. Democracies have a notorious habit of restricting immigration and trade when the economy deteriorates. Even though the concept is that as citizens, we have the right to make bad choices, and pay for them, democracies continue to make the wrong call due to the primacy of perception over facts in the political game. The causal relationship between restricting trade/immigration and a worsening economy is ignored over a very strong human instict to blame externalities over any systemic internal cause.
Thus people continue to promote fallacies such as "reducing immigration helps our unemployment rate" and "restricting imports helps our unemployment rate".
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe democratic countries will leave tariffs and immigration quotas untouched, while autocratic countries will clamp down on trade/immigration during the current downturn. I would be surprised.
The corollary is that the more democracy and the more direct the democracy, the better general decisions will be made.
A counter-example to this corollary is immigration and trade policy. Democracies have a notorious habit of restricting immigration and trade when the economy deteriorates. Even though the concept is that as citizens, we have the right to make bad choices, and pay for them, democracies continue to make the wrong call due to the primacy of perception over facts in the political game. The causal relationship between restricting trade/immigration and a worsening economy is ignored over a very strong human instict to blame externalities over any systemic internal cause.
Thus people continue to promote fallacies such as "reducing immigration helps our unemployment rate" and "restricting imports helps our unemployment rate".
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe democratic countries will leave tariffs and immigration quotas untouched, while autocratic countries will clamp down on trade/immigration during the current downturn. I would be surprised.
Friday, March 20, 2009
A democratised stimulus
The latest payments as part of the stimulus, which as far as I can tell are indiscriminate cash quantities for just about everyone registered with the Govern-mint, have an appeal to me even as it mindbogglingly blows my mind thinking about future taxes required to pay it back eventually.
Essentially, instead of bailing out whatever, or dictating prices for bread, etc. it empowers the individuals acting independently. If they deposit it in the bank, it strengthens that bank's capital in a way that bailouts couldn't. We will have more that we can decide to donate for disaster relief, improve our individual bottom line such that fear of destitution is allayed, without it being enough to feel that we are rich and can be reckless. Of course fools and their moneys are soon parted, which means the money should eventually concentrate in the hands of the less foolish. Eventually it should filter through to profits or income to someone who will then pay tax.
It neither attempts to save those that have lost everything in the crunch, nor does it punish those that profited from payouts from entities requiring bail-outs. WE decide who is deserving of our measured piece of this stimulus.
As a counter-cyclical plan from a government that has been very conservative through a boom, it is almost masterful. To get the impression that this sort of thing can be done at any other time for any other reason, is foolishness.
Essentially, instead of bailing out whatever, or dictating prices for bread, etc. it empowers the individuals acting independently. If they deposit it in the bank, it strengthens that bank's capital in a way that bailouts couldn't. We will have more that we can decide to donate for disaster relief, improve our individual bottom line such that fear of destitution is allayed, without it being enough to feel that we are rich and can be reckless. Of course fools and their moneys are soon parted, which means the money should eventually concentrate in the hands of the less foolish. Eventually it should filter through to profits or income to someone who will then pay tax.
It neither attempts to save those that have lost everything in the crunch, nor does it punish those that profited from payouts from entities requiring bail-outs. WE decide who is deserving of our measured piece of this stimulus.
As a counter-cyclical plan from a government that has been very conservative through a boom, it is almost masterful. To get the impression that this sort of thing can be done at any other time for any other reason, is foolishness.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Global warming - just polite conversation while we are waiting for real news
From: business spectator article
Perhaps it’s all just different ways of politicians who are under pressure from rising unemployment trying to appear to be doing something about global warming, while not doing anything at all.Europe’s method is to have a cap and trade scheme that doesn’t work. Australia’s method is to propose one that does not happen.
Back in 2007, I said:
When there are no "World" wars to talk about, no "great depressions" happening, the conversation will almost always turn to the weather :).
Maybe this slide into deep recession worldwide is just a symptom that the world has nothing interesting left to discuss other than the weather.
Perhaps it’s all just different ways of politicians who are under pressure from rising unemployment trying to appear to be doing something about global warming, while not doing anything at all.Europe’s method is to have a cap and trade scheme that doesn’t work. Australia’s method is to propose one that does not happen.
Back in 2007, I said:
When there are no "World" wars to talk about, no "great depressions" happening, the conversation will almost always turn to the weather :).
Maybe this slide into deep recession worldwide is just a symptom that the world has nothing interesting left to discuss other than the weather.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Perhaps I was a bit harsh on Miranda Devine
Back in 2006 I derided her for trivialising the effects of Cyclone Larry.
But now after a pointed attack on greenies, I am starting to come round to her style.
But now after a pointed attack on greenies, I am starting to come round to her style.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Individual action and carbon emmissions
From getup
Dear friend,
We thought long and hard about sending you this email, because we like to promote the idea that our individual actions make a difference. But we have to be honest about the Government's current climate policy.
Under their current proposal, action you take at home to reduce energy - like changing to efficient light bulbs and appliances or installing solar hot water - will not reduce Australia's total greenhouse emissions further than the Government's weak target of 5-15%. It will even make it cheaper for industry to increase their own emissions.
I may have got into this in detail in my other posts, but I think I am hearing the penny drop for climate activists. I reiterate what I said in other posts, that individual actions, even without the Rudd proposal mentioned above, do not proportionally reduce overall emmissions, because of the rebound effect and that individual actions tend to absolve guilt without being optimised for a nation-wide reduction of any amount.
However, like with water allocations, reducing carbon emmissions further comes down to a simple buying of emmission allocations, and then not using them. It actually sounds simpler than worrying about whether your net emmissions are going up because you use the money you saved on electricity to buy toys for your kids (WHICH ONE IS MORE CARBON INTENSIVE???) I think that in a decade, if the Murray floods again, and the Government has bought all these water allocations, it could make a mint selling them again.
Dear friend,
We thought long and hard about sending you this email, because we like to promote the idea that our individual actions make a difference. But we have to be honest about the Government's current climate policy.
Under their current proposal, action you take at home to reduce energy - like changing to efficient light bulbs and appliances or installing solar hot water - will not reduce Australia's total greenhouse emissions further than the Government's weak target of 5-15%. It will even make it cheaper for industry to increase their own emissions.
I may have got into this in detail in my other posts, but I think I am hearing the penny drop for climate activists. I reiterate what I said in other posts, that individual actions, even without the Rudd proposal mentioned above, do not proportionally reduce overall emmissions, because of the rebound effect and that individual actions tend to absolve guilt without being optimised for a nation-wide reduction of any amount.
However, like with water allocations, reducing carbon emmissions further comes down to a simple buying of emmission allocations, and then not using them. It actually sounds simpler than worrying about whether your net emmissions are going up because you use the money you saved on electricity to buy toys for your kids (WHICH ONE IS MORE CARBON INTENSIVE???) I think that in a decade, if the Murray floods again, and the Government has bought all these water allocations, it could make a mint selling them again.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Collective Political Decisions
I am still trying to make a reply to Anonymous's comment
A much more robust and satsifying system than American or Australian 'democracy' with a proven ability to function in a multicultural environment. referring to the very democratic Swiss model.
There is some things we can learn by How animals make collective decisions, and the point I was trying to make was that I judge collective systems by how regularly they come up with the "right" decision over how regularly they reflect majority opinion.
The recent Australian stimulus package wrangle was a case in point. With the Swiss model they would be wrangling longer, and come up with a worse "populist" decision in the end anyway. The Australian senate is unequalled in both investigating policy and in coming up with appropriate amendments quickly.
A much more robust and satsifying system than American or Australian 'democracy' with a proven ability to function in a multicultural environment. referring to the very democratic Swiss model.
There is some things we can learn by How animals make collective decisions, and the point I was trying to make was that I judge collective systems by how regularly they come up with the "right" decision over how regularly they reflect majority opinion.
The recent Australian stimulus package wrangle was a case in point. With the Swiss model they would be wrangling longer, and come up with a worse "populist" decision in the end anyway. The Australian senate is unequalled in both investigating policy and in coming up with appropriate amendments quickly.
Friday, February 13, 2009
It is not enough to grow trees one must also sequester!
The trouble with letting wilderness grow untouched by humankind is that sooner or later, it is going to burn (Not if you are in a rainforest). What is the point of growing trees to capture carbon, wilderness areas to encourage wildlife when it's going to eventually burn, sending uncontrolled black carbon and carbon dioxide into the air and killing vast swathes of native wildlife. Why not graze away the underbush with suitable farm animals, sequester large swathes of trees (eg. turn it into furniture, etc.) to make fire breaks, and contract Australia's army to make choices on various risk-reduction controls to take it out of the hands of NIMBY-minded councils and state governments.
Nick Xenophon is RIGHT
What better time is there than RIGHT NOW to buy off (by buying their water allocations) farmers in the Murray-Darling. The most likely thing that they will do with their windfall is to move to somewhere more sensible, like the Burdekin, Atherton Tablelands or N.T. farming areas, bringing their farming experience, and getting cheaper water allocations, and lower fire risks.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Two's and Nines
Pretty ordinary day, other than delivering your own child in the delivery-ward shower before breakfast.
Some Photos:
Dry and warm at last
Name: Abigail Talia
Date: 09/02/2009
Time: 08:15 am
Weight: 3540g
Hair: Dark
Video:
Some Photos:
Dry and warm at lastName: Abigail Talia
Date: 09/02/2009
Time: 08:15 am
Weight: 3540g
Hair: Dark
Video:
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pro ? part two
My first elaborate post on the future of abortion predictably only garnered comments from Dr. Clam, but that is ok. I know there are a couple of other interested readers (eg Lexifab???), but I really wanted to knuckle down on breaking down the discrepancies between our future visions (which we believe to be realistic within our lifetimes). These seem to be:
1) The plausibility of the commoditisation of surrogacy/adoption/fostering such that it impacts on the demand for abortions.
2) The plausibility of artificial wombs as a way to replace abortions with transfers of the fetus to be incubated, then brought up by interested NGO's or government organisations.
Obviously from my posts and comments I believe 1) to be plausible and 2) not to be plausible, and I guess these were implied axioms in my argument that contradict Dr. Clams'. These points deserve more attention a they are fairly definitive points of difference.
As for the first one, there is a tension between very strong instincts to favour bringing up ones own genetic offspring rather than an adopted child. For example, the amount parents are willing to pay for an IVF surrogacy of their own DNA ($100,000) over the cost of an overseas adoption ($20,000) demonstrates both that there is already a nascent (or limited) market for babies, and that there is a distinct tension between what buyers expect, and what sellers can readily deliver. I believe that gradual increased scope of these markets, combined with reduced natural fertility from couples that desire a baby will erode that tension. ie. as it gets harder and harder to fall pregnant (compared to the whims of the individual), naturally and then via IVF etc., domestic paid-for adoption will become more attractive. As the demand for babies goes up, so will the price, changing the economic calculus of those who would otherwise have an abortion. There is obviously more to it than just that, but the cost of BRINGING UP a baby is usually the primary concern more than the cost of bringing the baby to term. The choice at the moment is mainly economic. If the choice is between abort and adopt, abort brings the better individual outcome (for the parent). If it was between abort and sell, it would depend on the price, and the imagined future for the child.
To point 2: I strongly believe that breakthrough artificial womb technologies will be irrelevant to replacing abortion. My objections are two fold -
a) I don't believe it to be technically feasible.
and
b)It presumes a certain societal dynamic which contradicts the societal dynamic that I perceive.
To start with, I don't believe that just because neonatal units can keep babies alive if born at 24 weeks, that an "unwanted" pregnancy that reaches that point ought to be terminated by caesarian section and the baby fostered out. Increased survival rates for premature babies does not translate to earlier separation of mother and child being a good idea under any imaginable circumstance.
The societal dynamic of abortion that is ignored is that for an aborting mother the concept is of a reversal of the pregnancy. The early removal of the live fetus is not the same thing, and if it was the mothers decision, the perceived effectiveness of the receiving entity to deal with children would be the deciding factor. In a society where pregnancies were automatically registered at conception, sexual norms would radically alter depending on various laws, changing the whole spectrum of who's pregnancies would become unwanted in ways dependent on a number of independent variables. In itself the extra option of early live removal of a fetus will not be perceived as a replacement for abortion by women with undesired pregnancies any more than adoption is now.
1) The plausibility of the commoditisation of surrogacy/adoption/fostering such that it impacts on the demand for abortions.
2) The plausibility of artificial wombs as a way to replace abortions with transfers of the fetus to be incubated, then brought up by interested NGO's or government organisations.
Obviously from my posts and comments I believe 1) to be plausible and 2) not to be plausible, and I guess these were implied axioms in my argument that contradict Dr. Clams'. These points deserve more attention a they are fairly definitive points of difference.
As for the first one, there is a tension between very strong instincts to favour bringing up ones own genetic offspring rather than an adopted child. For example, the amount parents are willing to pay for an IVF surrogacy of their own DNA ($100,000) over the cost of an overseas adoption ($20,000) demonstrates both that there is already a nascent (or limited) market for babies, and that there is a distinct tension between what buyers expect, and what sellers can readily deliver. I believe that gradual increased scope of these markets, combined with reduced natural fertility from couples that desire a baby will erode that tension. ie. as it gets harder and harder to fall pregnant (compared to the whims of the individual), naturally and then via IVF etc., domestic paid-for adoption will become more attractive. As the demand for babies goes up, so will the price, changing the economic calculus of those who would otherwise have an abortion. There is obviously more to it than just that, but the cost of BRINGING UP a baby is usually the primary concern more than the cost of bringing the baby to term. The choice at the moment is mainly economic. If the choice is between abort and adopt, abort brings the better individual outcome (for the parent). If it was between abort and sell, it would depend on the price, and the imagined future for the child.
To point 2: I strongly believe that breakthrough artificial womb technologies will be irrelevant to replacing abortion. My objections are two fold -
a) I don't believe it to be technically feasible.
and
b)It presumes a certain societal dynamic which contradicts the societal dynamic that I perceive.
To start with, I don't believe that just because neonatal units can keep babies alive if born at 24 weeks, that an "unwanted" pregnancy that reaches that point ought to be terminated by caesarian section and the baby fostered out. Increased survival rates for premature babies does not translate to earlier separation of mother and child being a good idea under any imaginable circumstance.
The societal dynamic of abortion that is ignored is that for an aborting mother the concept is of a reversal of the pregnancy. The early removal of the live fetus is not the same thing, and if it was the mothers decision, the perceived effectiveness of the receiving entity to deal with children would be the deciding factor. In a society where pregnancies were automatically registered at conception, sexual norms would radically alter depending on various laws, changing the whole spectrum of who's pregnancies would become unwanted in ways dependent on a number of independent variables. In itself the extra option of early live removal of a fetus will not be perceived as a replacement for abortion by women with undesired pregnancies any more than adoption is now.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Geopolitical game theory rules
I have often mentioned game theory, rules, and the UN in the same sentence. Do not mistake this for a belief that the UN is of any relevance at all as a lawmaker in itself. Not only that, Australia would be my first choice as a world government, followed by the USA. The UN as a "government" is a toothless paper tiger and not capable of governing.
The set of treaties that have been signed by countries *does* determine the structure of the game and the moves each country can reasonably make. Thus, no matter what in theory the UN "decides", for instance on Iraq - the US being a security council veto member could not be stopped by the UN itself, but only by the domestic voting public that cared about what the UN decided.
Similarly with Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, and in some way - Israel in Lebanon and now Gaza. The UN is important only in the sense of the importance of the individual treaties to the actions of various countries.
Thus several theoretically sensible annexations or merging of countries are very very unlikely due to the dynamics associated with how those treaties associated with the UN manifest themselves in Geopolitics.
Thus to consider entertaining possibilities like Australia annexing Pacific states etc., a new post-UN world order would have to be assumed first.
The set of treaties that have been signed by countries *does* determine the structure of the game and the moves each country can reasonably make. Thus, no matter what in theory the UN "decides", for instance on Iraq - the US being a security council veto member could not be stopped by the UN itself, but only by the domestic voting public that cared about what the UN decided.
Similarly with Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, and in some way - Israel in Lebanon and now Gaza. The UN is important only in the sense of the importance of the individual treaties to the actions of various countries.
Thus several theoretically sensible annexations or merging of countries are very very unlikely due to the dynamics associated with how those treaties associated with the UN manifest themselves in Geopolitics.
Thus to consider entertaining possibilities like Australia annexing Pacific states etc., a new post-UN world order would have to be assumed first.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
New Year Stuff
At this time of year, I tend to look back and try to think what historical turning points have happened. The one that comes to mind is dated 08/08/08 - the Georgian conflict. To me it marks the end of the relatively short historical period which I would characterise as "Unipolar", with the US as the only global police with teeth and some level of morality. It is back to a relative free-for-all in warfare, and in trade.
As far as domestic politics goes, I am not too impressed with the changes to the baby bonus system, even though personally I still get the same amount of money albeit at a considerably later date. My preference was for family payments to start *When a pregnancy is registered* both for the practical reason that you need to buy stuff for the baby before it is born, and that it moves more towards vision X by considering the unborn baby as a person, at the time that the mother considers it to be at the least. This is one of the most win-win of the steps towards vision X, and a new years resolution is to put it to the public somehow in 2009.
As far as domestic politics goes, I am not too impressed with the changes to the baby bonus system, even though personally I still get the same amount of money albeit at a considerably later date. My preference was for family payments to start *When a pregnancy is registered* both for the practical reason that you need to buy stuff for the baby before it is born, and that it moves more towards vision X by considering the unborn baby as a person, at the time that the mother considers it to be at the least. This is one of the most win-win of the steps towards vision X, and a new years resolution is to put it to the public somehow in 2009.
Monday, December 29, 2008
News of the Day
Blah blah Israel-Palestine conflict.... Blah blah India-Pakistan tensions....
Brett Lee out for summer!? NNNooooooooo.......
Brett Lee out for summer!? NNNooooooooo.......
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Beware the technology/science/intelligence wish myth
Often in arguments about the future resolutions of apparently intractable problems, vague references to science or human intelligence to solve problems, or specific technological fixes are invoked that would neatly resolve said intractable problem.
Too many times the fix is chosen in a way that most closes the argument rather than being the most likely path that technology (or other aspects of humanity) will take in the resolving the problem or the opposite. Technology, science and intelligence are just as capable of enabling "problems" to be extended in time. What can be imagined to be solved by an improbable specific technology, could more likely be attacked by a sequence of more probable ones.
So when someone says that a space vehicle engine will be found that can take us directly from earth to Mars, or that peoples intelligence will be put to eradicating wars forever, or that we could live cheaply as brains in tanks, I would like a believable sequence of events or pathway that has a finite possibility.
Too many times the fix is chosen in a way that most closes the argument rather than being the most likely path that technology (or other aspects of humanity) will take in the resolving the problem or the opposite. Technology, science and intelligence are just as capable of enabling "problems" to be extended in time. What can be imagined to be solved by an improbable specific technology, could more likely be attacked by a sequence of more probable ones.
So when someone says that a space vehicle engine will be found that can take us directly from earth to Mars, or that peoples intelligence will be put to eradicating wars forever, or that we could live cheaply as brains in tanks, I would like a believable sequence of events or pathway that has a finite possibility.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Energy Positive Feedback
One of the "fundamentals" of oil prices (and other commodities) is the thought that the cost of extraction ought to be fixed or stable for a given geography, related to how difficult or involved the process. Changes in cost due to demand and supply is explained away to profit margin over fixed costs, costs of exploration and costs of increasing capacity etc.
The truth is, with such increasing automation of providing supplies, one of the larger marginal cost of energy supply is the cost of the energy used to provide that supply. Thus as the expectation of costs incease, prices will increase in a magnified way, as the feedback of energy costs increasing will increase the associated cost of extraction. There will be correlation between increases in one energy commodity and a range of other energy commodities and commodities that require a lot of energy to produce( eg. Aluminium, Iron), or that can produce alternative fuels (eg. silicon for solar panels, or sugar for ethanol etc.).
Similarly if expectations of prices start to decrease, and there was a considerable margin to start with, there can be a positive feedback which reduces the price and also the baseline cost of extraction as well through the correlated energy rich commodities. This snowballing downward will still leave some producers with profit margin, even if there would have been a considerable loss at those prices with input costs the way they were.
The truth is, with such increasing automation of providing supplies, one of the larger marginal cost of energy supply is the cost of the energy used to provide that supply. Thus as the expectation of costs incease, prices will increase in a magnified way, as the feedback of energy costs increasing will increase the associated cost of extraction. There will be correlation between increases in one energy commodity and a range of other energy commodities and commodities that require a lot of energy to produce( eg. Aluminium, Iron), or that can produce alternative fuels (eg. silicon for solar panels, or sugar for ethanol etc.).
Similarly if expectations of prices start to decrease, and there was a considerable margin to start with, there can be a positive feedback which reduces the price and also the baseline cost of extraction as well through the correlated energy rich commodities. This snowballing downward will still leave some producers with profit margin, even if there would have been a considerable loss at those prices with input costs the way they were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)