OK. I agree that failure on every one of those objectives is assured. But the issue is less about setting the objective and measuring the outcomes than it is about *harvesting* one's failures. Everyone (with any sense) knows we'll fail on the overwhelming majority of those very ambitious objectives. But the point of such objectives is not to succeed perfectly, as if we're some GA satisfying a singular exogenous objective function. Their purpose is an ethical one.
After Pieter's post, it rekindled my desire for a "dashboard" presenting measures for each [sub]objective. But, going back to your original, correct, objection, non-planned-for measures/effects would not be included, biasing our understanding of the progression. Each measure becomes nothing more than a bell on a slot machine, injecting a little dopamine. That's what the Pinkers and Shermers of the world seem like to me. Slot machine players looking for that dopamine ... like Musk launching a stupid car up into space. They're sooooo similar to the junkies I used to clean up after in the park behind our old house. On 5/27/21 8:10 AM, Prof David West wrote: > I must agree and disagree. > > Yes, my statement was an oversimplification, but not a caricature. > > The caveat I should have included concerns the "distance" from where we are > at the moment and the point at which the objective would be achieved. > > I stand by my assertion that for objectives like the UN goals shared by > Pieter and the less specific objectives in Steve's post, failure is assuredly > more likely than success — based on the arguments presented in the book. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
