Material and Spirits of Projects
Materialist wealth is not enough, spiritual one should be shared with a basic dual perspective. Be spirituality, because human beings project their hopes and speculate. Pure spirituality could well be a good way to sustainability if balance by aware that, on Earth we intermediate (in biotic and abiotic) and depend on energetic supplies allowed because processes are often non efficient. So as second choice: derive energetic supplies toward transformations, have better efficiency. But it is hard (or improbable to make spontaneous good neguentropies like for artificial constructions. Still best optima with neguentropic buildings seems to be natural, hence away from humans: mainly with organisms having reverted the balance entropy/neguentropies, with Sun's inputs. The humans can introduce a bias in hierarchical networks of natural production. Because the human engineering of abiotic ressources is also a resource (use of mineral ressources), and despite their lack of good compatibility with biotic world. Sustainable management can be with better civilization and last more than traditional previous ones, considering present anthropic World system and its horrendous waste of slowly or almost non renewable stocks or raw material.
Humans intermediations (or interferencies) have affected competent and efficient natural hierarchies, that produced a liveable troposphere, and have not produced richer incorporable diversity, despite amazing technologies. Out major disequilibria, returning any transformed space back to Nature, will recover sooner or later without using much of humans' creations of "superior complex subsystems": Nature will prefers its recipes. Extend and extension of human settlements at the expense of Nature will, at best, rpobably reach another end of civilization and actually may be an adverse whole World for most World's societies. Meanwhile, traditional spirituality societies have historically evolved since, at first, begging forgiveness for taking means of existence or receiving it from so powerfull natural gods owmers up to, nowaday, justify our environmental engineering (and waste) at any speculated cost. First urban gods, often where often "regenerating God" now seen "horrendous" (as Baal, Kali, Hephaistos, Mars). Then observing the enormous amounts and stocks of ressources we could use, profits from trade and abuse of various forms of slavery; humans may have thought necessary to introduce only one superior God, good enough to gave us the ownership of places to any able to catch them, armed with weapons and one book. Whatever the frames observed, settlements on the Earth, are also dialectical, moral or material. Before industrial era there was a primary need for having good use of natural places, landscape or ecosystems. That can come from a wise mixing and flexibility of balanced uses, between things made respected or even spirited. So called it as you like (whatever the "ALGODEUSLAH name), Nature can be respected in essence and knowlege, since given by the All Mighty.
The development of knowledge and its involvement in humans interested frames, rediscovering, in comprehensive places (global views, holistic or empires) where social compassionate cares could be more fruitful than just grabbing and stirring anything to oneself. Management of norms and spirits happened to produce sometimes goods dids; according religious settings, complicated balances, bizarre pathways and patchworked programs. If complexity prevents antispiritualism (as have been atheist reductive systems) it is not to turn it a intolerent religion; despite that modern evidences that scientific sciences are providing more to humans than religious interpretations and rituals, and not exactly solving the core complex dual of material and spiritual, you may conceive spirituallity as the bridge(s) of present to future.
Now, that ideal sciences has demonstrated their limits of their own demonstrations. Including some scientists, servants of spirit can even provide new spiritual inspirations and simultaneously scientific lectures. Others transcultural theologists are rediscovering, wisdom on comprehensive views of humane world. Meanwhile more profane people are still praying the usefulness of religious rites and of cultural anthropological habitus pretending these to cope well with local environments sustainability.
Social projects must adapt to anything, that can preserve from the adverse effects of badly scaled engineering projects. These engineering projects should incorporate any possible social issues, able to provide sustanability. Whatever are the goals and the practical motives, it may be unwise, both to ignore or make spirit or ideology the (naked) core, In what we project, especially if there are not assumed balances, there are plenty of paradoxes.
Material Projects: Not too Large for Coping and Progress in the Sustainability
We are material during our period on Earth and, minimum needs should not be equivocal. Their satisfaction ground material wealth and support first private freedom: safety,however hard it is to define it on the limits. Spirituality as main goal of deterministic project, say like religious; as an effect of intangibility or speculation (where humans cannot be superior); can affect freedom as well as sustainability. It is to observe that concept of liberty or freedom is also partly provided by what allows social and ecological mixtures of constraints and these should not be ignored as with complex environments. For example, human settlements of sustainable communities often try to work efficiently in 2 or 3 complex environments fruitfully: coastal, foot-hill, estuaries, watershed involving hill-sides and so on, are cleaver than just one type of place. Rivers or along roads development mixed local productions with trade, ecological and geographical considerations and this diversity is often missed in industrial planning.
Material is what we take from the surroundings, empoverishing it. Any transformation has energetic costs. Spontaneously and naked energetic waste is often and at least of 2/3 of input. Creation ? we are quite limited to the catchment from superior reservoirs; be them qualitative (like biodiversity) or quantitative (like hydrocarbons or fuelwood) and often missuse them to reach levels of scale of power that look like more dictatorial or hegemonic ambitions. Thank to progresses in sciences, we can take advantages using more fundamental knowledge having major derivation. Like fundamental forms of energies (as atomic) or use of mineral abiotic ressources and economies of scale but miss then to include all perspectives and all costs.
We can settle an artificial world more systematically dedicated to our preferences, but all this is never sure to provide with only positive effects even only relatively to our selfish interest. What is more probable is that those derivations implies important energetic costs, release of heat and enormous waste, costly to repair and remake healthy (just to the humans). We have already strongly reduced environments' resilience capacities. Thus a third, and often ignored of mistreated register is with the efficiency of thermodynamics management. Something ignored by formal economics. Could ? - the development or renewal of social infrastructures, in a systemic way - be a better kind of economics proceedings. Without ignoring that the formalism of "scientific economics" is gaining on formulation of common good sense. Of this sensitive evidence, we are not sure. First because the margins of thermodynamics values are not very discriminating, and are very (fundamentally) distributed. Hard to be very impressive when speaking of one percent digit of energetic gain, on far more waste. For example: a care saving technological 9% of fuel is already important (and during the testing period of a new car) but far from very important over the whole, compared to the variability of use one's car; the very minimum or the disaster made by the lack of care of another part design. Second because complexity is everywhere with many forms: it does not help much to point only to few eventually calling them evils and say responsible of everything, or pretend to find the "good" leader for fixing everythings.
"Preferences on a set X are a function f that assigns to any pair (x, y) of distinct elements in X exactly one of the three “values”
- x > y,
- y > x or
- y = x
So that for any three different elements x, y and z in X,the following two properties hold:
- No order effect: f (x, y) = f (y, x).
if f (x, y) = x > y and f (y, z) = y > z then f (x, z) = x > z and
if f (x, y) = I and f (y, z) = I then f (x, z) = I.
But there are “procedures” that cause systematic violations of transitivity and we could add that complex minimum makes anyhow these intransitivity so necessary to simple economic logic, and essential characteristic of humane rationality. Otherwise humans would have not try to find reasoned other pathways and humane alternative strategies to solve simple situations of scarcity. The following are two such examples.
1. Aggregation of considerations as a source of intransitivity.
2. The use of similarities as an obstacle to transitivity".
The epistemological basis of the Rational Expectations Hypothesis is the same theory of knowledge which underlies virtually all neoclassical models which deal with uncertainty and information. It is the view that presumes:
- That true knowledge requires inductive proofs, and
- That the acquisition of knowledge is constrained by what we called the ‘inductive learning possibilities function’, which itself is constrained by the currently accepted information set.
"The Rational Expectations Hypothesis pretended to solve the Problem of Conventions by saying that one should choose the model or theory which maximizes the net benefits of the present information set. This is analogous to maximizing short-run profits given the current capital. Furthermore, rather than providing a solution to the Problem of Induction, it provides a good reason for not requiring inductive proofs, since, even if logically possible, they would be too expensive. The basis of the rational expectations version of Conventionalism might thus be called ‘partial’ induction. And in this sense it could be argued that traditional Inductivism is a special case based on what might be called ‘extreme’. That there is no discussion of an explicit learning theory to back up the acquisition of the expectations falls short of the mark because, as we noted above, there is a learning theory built into the hidden agenda. Thus, no additional learning theory is logically necessary.
Critics of Rational Expectations models argue that in the long-run the Rational Expectations Hypothesis is equivalent to the more elementary ‘adaptive expectations hypothesis’ . That this claim is supposed to be a criticism suggests that there is something wrong with adaptive expectations. What is wrong is that adaptive expectations explanations are ad hoc. Adaptive expectations are formed merely by trial and error; each subsequent prediction (expectation) is adjusted as indicated by the sign and magnitude of the previous error.
Rational choice revisited can be more complicated:
- Only based on self advantage / antipathy / control's virtue
- Together with others / empathy / complexity of empathy
- For others / sympathy / self-destructive
- Indifference / ab-social / virtue of appearance (and do positivelly) / deep consistency.
Interest is a complex dual. On one reduced focused side, we have discreteness, units, rates or interest quantified. On a large side fan-shape or hand of options there are qualitative complexities to share or discriminate between humans. The ones that lock everything or few ones that allow somethings to happen: a signature, an agreement, a set of rules. Others included in the scales of quantities, like defining levels, articulations and amounts for densification of "emergencies", care of contingencies and so on.
Interest can technically be seen as an expression of intermediate individualism. At one extremum or maximum, eventually positive discrimination of one lone doing to all (or some) others. Somewhere a value which should always be shared or provided by some enough important or all of equal importance. Value is because you can need or can do with. But also because all others values too also want to have something to do in it, even if yours'. That makes value either a paradoxe either an oxymore.
Traditionnaly interest is pictured as a process of change or ex-post exposed, as the slope of a straight line from the origin (start) and some point where benefit of change does not worth the supplement of effort. Ex-ante (before), a project, you make a projection of some growing curve of level of production or amount of finance pretenting to set this slope at your convenience (comparing similar other - past - projects or other financial opportunities existing in the market). Ambition emerged from experience and a consistent conviction, that you can do the same or better (or less), and so on. So you adjust your interest according your views on the future. Not meaning there that you are really socially efficient. Complication for many common people is to miss the intuitive visual processes you can have. Even with quantitative value, to approximate like just by drawing properly the geometric object you can design. Because applied mathematicians will not get out of the "sure analytic formulation" for a geometric representation" which is often enough if well drawn.
You may observe basic complex economical functions at each level of units, eventually repeated as the similar piece of structure along the scale. Because integration is complex, it makes it very difficult to establish clear limits between each units integrated along a complex scale. In sociology, examples of relevant complex units to integrate could be successivley: individual < family < community < regional society < national society < humanity. Implying each, skills in self-management.
Regulations Allowing (neither halloween's feast neither Walpurgis' night)
Factitious animal modern economics look like making more easy anomic and criminal activities (no better entrepreneur capitalist than narcos' barons)
- Reduction / exclude / limit access / imperfect information
- Confusion makes antagonic judge and part / confusion can make synergy (if altruism can be preserved / not criminality empowered
- Discrepancies loose ties / more uncommonness / priorities harder Predator / prey / contrary to teleology
Added to the virtues of economics driven by moral criteria, to help manage interests could observe:
- Enough but not too options for choosing,
- Flexibility of managements, values and interests have to match productions and expectations,
- Confusion, concern, commitment and openess,
- Measured reason in ambition and no excessive gaps, etc.
Assume higher regulations than current oversimplifications and reductions of State's intervention remain largelly ideologic. After political clients driving public authorities have been blackmail by their own friends, to interfere massively in the rescue of the "best institutions for financial managing markets" makin an irrational unfair government of finance. Now pretending to have been renewed regulations and interventions seem hardly to cope with more understanding of complexities, despite speeches well filled with rhetoretic; but still not really with good theoretical guidelines. Even if there are plenty of sophisticated modellizations and codex of tautological principles on what could ground that.
To introduce to the terminology of decentralized regution of public goods of concern, like in processes of setting infrastructures of social services, theoretically speaking in simple frame for simple causes: "Decentralized decisions, to a bureau with a given budget, about the production of public goods is analysed within a general equilibrium model with a representative agent and no pure profits".
It is shown that decentralization:
- Does not necessarily imply aggregate production efficiency and
- Need not be optimal even if all public goods are neutral.
In cost benefit analysis a general rule of thumb for the optimal level of public goods projects is that the sum over individuals of marginal rates of substitution (MRS) between the public project and some arbitrary private numerai commodity should equal the marginal cost (MC) of the public goods project (Sum(MRS) = MC). This rule originates from the Samuelson treatment of the Pareto efficient supply of public goods and is sometimes known as the Samuelson's rule. When the rule is valid it implies that a trade off between any two public goods should be such that the sum of the marginal rates of substitution over consumers between two public goods should equal the marginal rates of transformation between the same two public goods.
Thus, first best impiies that the central government could delegate to a subordinate bureau to decide about public goods following this rule of thumb subject to a given expenditure limit. The Samuelson's rule, however, requires access to the type of differentiated lump–sum taxes that are required by the second fundamental welfare theorem. It then follows that in the presence of different types of second best tax systems this rule of thumb is only valid in special cases.
The reason for this is that is not only the fact that there is a dead–weight loss associated with second best tax systems used for marginal finance of public goods projects as hypothesised by Pigou. There are in fact generally 3 additional effects:
- Second best taxes are also associated with income effectswhich may reinforce or work opposite to the substitution effects.
- The publicgood projects may be complements or substitutes with the private goods thatconstitute the tax base so the marginal cost of producing of the public good may not be equal to the net effect on the public budget.
- There are general equilibrium effects on the price structure".