Reading the "green" discussion got me to thinking about the way we (the
modern west, that is, not just Brinellers) tend to use the idea of cost
effectiveness, price and related ideas in argument these days. I'm
increasingly bothered by the implication and acceptance of the idea that if
something can be proved to be non-cost-effective, that's the end of the
argument.
The basic problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that
the market, which sets prices, has perfect knowledge, which is not true,
especially when it comes to matters such as the long-term effects of energy
systems on the environment. Of course, that is a theoretical, not pragmatic,
observation, so I'll continue.
I'd like to suggest the idea that it is possible, and typical, for cultures
to put too much faith in sources of authority. When they do so, the source
of authority become corrupt and untrustworthy. That's how I look at the
trust that the medieval world put in the Church of Rome; I think we're
making the same mistake with feedback systems such as democracy and free
markets. The medieval worldview imbued the church with absolute authority
because an infallible connection between God and Earth was essential to the
"Great Chain of Being." The modern world escaped the tyranny of popes and
kings by discovering and inventing feedback loops, with free markets and
democracy as the most visible social examples. There are plenty of others
that played an enormous role -- Darwin's theory of speciation and James
Watt's invention of the self-regulating steam engine, for examples.
To get back to my original point, it seems to me that when one treats
cost-benefit analysis as a final argument, that's as silly as treating a
papal bull as a final argument. I'm not suggesting that the authority of
feedback such as the market wasn't an enormous leap forward, but it's still
not perfect. A couple of examples of its flaws are visible in this very
medium: Microsoft and the Internet. Microsoft and Windows have painfully
demonstrated "increasing returns," "network effects," "positive feedback" or
whatever you name you prefer, which has created a serious conundrum for
economists and regulators. On the other hand, the Internet grew at
unbelievable speed through collaboration as much as through competition,
which I believe demonstrates that self-organization through collaboration is
as powerful a regulatory principle as self-regulation through feedback.
Finally, I'll add that I think science is mirroring the social changes,
finding that in evolution, for example, collaboration -- Lynn Margulis' idea
of endosymbiosis -- has played a significant role. At a chemical and
biochemical level, Stuart Kauffman continues to suggest new ways of thinking
about the nature of the universe that bring to bear self-organization and
even collaboration of a sort. By the way, I'll recommend his new book,
Investigations, even though I haven't finished it yet.
Nick Arnett
Direct phone: 408-733-7613 Fax: 408-904-7198
