A lot has been said about the desensitizing effect the internet seems to have on the "youth of today" and some sort of associated dystopian future. The internet is accused of connecting every kind of pervert, pornographer and extremist with more of his/her kind. Instead of connecting people to diversity, the net has emerged as a tool for auto-selecting our social landscape for the similarly minded and enhancing our ability to survive without extending contact to anyone beyond these groups. And as a sort of corollary to this, we become desensitised to things that would (supposedly) in a previous age make us cringe, weep, smile or otherwise emote.
Peculiar Aside: Consider for a moment that the extreme gore vids, the beheadings and the BME Pain Olympics of the internet desensitise us to violence. Supposedly this makes us more capable of horrific acts of violence. At the same time, the fact that the net effectively has an unlimited supply of motivational, moving or otherwise touching stories, desensitises us to the uplifting. Yet no one seems to point out that this will supposedly make us more prone to acts of heroism. It seems that what we are really afraid of his an incapacity to emote. I wonder how this anxiety fits with the fact that we live in a post-enlightenment society that has relegated emotion to a somewhat lonely corner.
However, perhaps, the flaw in this characterisation of the internet (and its consequent future) is not in its strict factual basis but rather in its framing of the practical effect the internet has on us. Consider for a moment that the internet, instead of cultivating, organising or encouraging anti-social behaviour, really just tweaks our norms.
Let us try a behaviourist perspective. If we consider for a moment the proposition that we don't carry with us some innate, universal set of norms (our moral code being one of them), and that instead, our norms are socially and locally and immediately generated. By socially, I mean created by our interaction with other people, and by locally and immediately, I mean that it depends on the immediate location and time of the interaction.
If the internet simply opens us up to a worldwide network of potential interactors, then we haven't really been desensitised, we've really been re-sensitised. Instead of adhering to the norms of our geographical or national identities, we've merely chosen norms that So far it's been a rather undirected and organic process, with the internet really attempting to pander to our most basic and universal capacities. (See for example Porn and Videos of cute animals)
The next logical step is therefore to attempt to direct, control or restrict the norms being propagated through the internet. While this seems somewhat antithetical to the nature of the internet (in that it is assumed to be untameable) and behaviourism (in that someone is capable of direction, as opposed to merely being a deterministic product) one wonders if it has ever been attempted seriously. And then it dawns on you: The Chinese Communist Party.
The CCP has been known to actively censor parts of the internet, while simultaneously co-opting the non-censored parts (think of the control over Baidu etc.) and the active deployment of pro-CCP websites, forums, pages, and materials. The excellent thing about the CCP propaganda is that its most successful appears to be people. There are large groups of ethnically Chinese people around the world, whether or not they were brought up under the rule of the Party, who support the Party, while simultaneously being aware of the Party's greatest atrocities (recast instead as failings). The CCP then has managed to craft a cybersphere that is at once desensitising and yet re-sensitising, particularly in the sense that it serves to enhance the legitimacy of the party.
But that is now, and what's more interesting is the future. With the rise of non-state actors as the new dominant force in global politics/economics (think: Al Qaeda, Camorra, MNCs) perhaps the future lies in the use of the internet as a re-sensitising tool to alter our norms so that they cohere more appropriately to these interests.
And as soon as I write this, I suddenly realise that we're there already. Consider all the extremist sites that propagate the narrative. Consider Apple's ability to charge $2.99 for a game on the iPhone that is free to play online. If you're reading, welcome to the Borg. Resistance is futile.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Let us begin by assuming...
Referencing this blog again. Is this becoming a habit for me?
Ok. So the idea you have of what goes on in economic circles isn't exactly true. But it's deceptively close.
The real consensus seems to be on the link between technology, education and income inequality. And even then, the data only goes back about 100 years, so anything much earlier than that no one is really sure about.
Please note that education doesn't necessarily translate into skills and economists aren't entirely sure what education does.
1. Ideas about Education
There's the idea that education increases productivity by teaching you skills, which is sort of more traditional. Then there's the idea that all education does is signal an inherent ability, largely attributed to Michael Spence. (The testable difference should involve looking at highly productive workers in jobs where education is no predictor of productivity.)
As an aside, Tyler Cowen has also proposed a new model of education that suggests that some forms of higher education are really placebo education and work through the placebo effect. Therefore more education might not make you more productive, just more convincing education.
2. Income/Wealth
It's important to keep in mind that we're measuring income inequality here and not utility or happiness. It's interesting to note that a lot of the technologies you mentioned as being ubiquitous were consumer products and public goods. These things often provide significantly more utility/happiness than they cost. (Think cell phones in the developing world.)(Neo)-classical economics points out that the price of a good tends towards its marginal cost, so we'd expect that consumers end up with a quite a lot of gains from happiness that aren't reflected in economic data.
So when we look at income data, what we really need to look at is suppliers/producers. The question is therefore how income affects workers/producers of goods, not consumers.
3. Education leads to skill
So there are a couple of theories on this. The most popular one out there right now was produced by Goldin and Katz entitled "The race between education and technology", which was a paper and is now a book as well. I must confess I have yet to read either.
The idea is that increases in technology increase demand for skilled workers (ceteris paribus) thereby increasing income inequality.
Please note that productivity is a difficult thing to measure. It's traditionally measured as the value of output per hour worked. How you measure that is a strange thing. You can measure it either through pay, through some value of the output, through market value of the output etc.
Assuming that workers actually increased their productivity in the sense that they produced more output, you can imagine that technology like a computer has increased the productivity of an office worker more than say a janitor.
Furthermore, you can imagine that time-saving technology (think email etc.) would increase the earnings of a lawyer more than it would his or her secretary because the time of the highly educated tends to be worth more.
4. Globalisation leading to Hit or Miss products
This sort of theory runs around the idea that globalisation breaks down barriers between markets. In the modern era, because of the nature of technology there has been a concentration in the resulting gains from trade.
The idea behind this theory is something like this. Consider that before globalisation, the job of searching for information was spread around across a lot of people. Think of all the librarians, encyclopaedia writers etc who toiled away working on the problem of cataloguing and retrieving information. Technology, in the form of say Google, has largely replaced many of these people, and does their job significantly more efficiently. Unfortunately, in this new model, all the gains from this increase in productivity accrue only to the shareholders of Google, who we assume are a much smaller group of people than all the librarians/cataloguers of the world. Therefore the technological change in this case, although increasing productivity, increases income inequality because the gains from productivity go to smaller groups of people.
Now you can see that point 3 and point 4 are both related to the idea that "skilled" workers are more capable of exploiting technological advances.
5. Empirical data
The interesting point about the empirical research is that if you increase (public) education and technology at the same time, inequality actually decreases (See Goldin and Katz from above) because those who would otherwise have been workers with low education and low earnings now jump far ahead to the high-earning highly-educated group of the technologically advanced economy. This group tends to form the traditional middle-class. (When I say high-earning I mean relative to before. The really high earning would be the propertied upper class I guess.) It seems intuitive though that technology would expand the income inequality decreasing effects of education.
I'm not entirely sure about the math on this point since it depends on how you measure inequality as well. Might be interesting to look at.
How this mechanism operates is somewhat elusive. If you know of any research on the topic, it might be interesting to read. I'm tempted to put a conclusion in somewhere but I feel that's a little premature. Thoughts?
Ok. So the idea you have of what goes on in economic circles isn't exactly true. But it's deceptively close.
The real consensus seems to be on the link between technology, education and income inequality. And even then, the data only goes back about 100 years, so anything much earlier than that no one is really sure about.
Please note that education doesn't necessarily translate into skills and economists aren't entirely sure what education does.
1. Ideas about Education
There's the idea that education increases productivity by teaching you skills, which is sort of more traditional. Then there's the idea that all education does is signal an inherent ability, largely attributed to Michael Spence. (The testable difference should involve looking at highly productive workers in jobs where education is no predictor of productivity.)
As an aside, Tyler Cowen has also proposed a new model of education that suggests that some forms of higher education are really placebo education and work through the placebo effect. Therefore more education might not make you more productive, just more convincing education.
2. Income/Wealth
It's important to keep in mind that we're measuring income inequality here and not utility or happiness. It's interesting to note that a lot of the technologies you mentioned as being ubiquitous were consumer products and public goods. These things often provide significantly more utility/happiness than they cost. (Think cell phones in the developing world.)(Neo)-classical economics points out that the price of a good tends towards its marginal cost, so we'd expect that consumers end up with a quite a lot of gains from happiness that aren't reflected in economic data.
So when we look at income data, what we really need to look at is suppliers/producers. The question is therefore how income affects workers/producers of goods, not consumers.
3. Education leads to skill
So there are a couple of theories on this. The most popular one out there right now was produced by Goldin and Katz entitled "The race between education and technology", which was a paper and is now a book as well. I must confess I have yet to read either.
The idea is that increases in technology increase demand for skilled workers (ceteris paribus) thereby increasing income inequality.
Please note that productivity is a difficult thing to measure. It's traditionally measured as the value of output per hour worked. How you measure that is a strange thing. You can measure it either through pay, through some value of the output, through market value of the output etc.
Assuming that workers actually increased their productivity in the sense that they produced more output, you can imagine that technology like a computer has increased the productivity of an office worker more than say a janitor.
Furthermore, you can imagine that time-saving technology (think email etc.) would increase the earnings of a lawyer more than it would his or her secretary because the time of the highly educated tends to be worth more.
4. Globalisation leading to Hit or Miss products
This sort of theory runs around the idea that globalisation breaks down barriers between markets. In the modern era, because of the nature of technology there has been a concentration in the resulting gains from trade.
The idea behind this theory is something like this. Consider that before globalisation, the job of searching for information was spread around across a lot of people. Think of all the librarians, encyclopaedia writers etc who toiled away working on the problem of cataloguing and retrieving information. Technology, in the form of say Google, has largely replaced many of these people, and does their job significantly more efficiently. Unfortunately, in this new model, all the gains from this increase in productivity accrue only to the shareholders of Google, who we assume are a much smaller group of people than all the librarians/cataloguers of the world. Therefore the technological change in this case, although increasing productivity, increases income inequality because the gains from productivity go to smaller groups of people.
Now you can see that point 3 and point 4 are both related to the idea that "skilled" workers are more capable of exploiting technological advances.
5. Empirical data
The interesting point about the empirical research is that if you increase (public) education and technology at the same time, inequality actually decreases (See Goldin and Katz from above) because those who would otherwise have been workers with low education and low earnings now jump far ahead to the high-earning highly-educated group of the technologically advanced economy. This group tends to form the traditional middle-class. (When I say high-earning I mean relative to before. The really high earning would be the propertied upper class I guess.) It seems intuitive though that technology would expand the income inequality decreasing effects of education.
I'm not entirely sure about the math on this point since it depends on how you measure inequality as well. Might be interesting to look at.
How this mechanism operates is somewhat elusive. If you know of any research on the topic, it might be interesting to read. I'm tempted to put a conclusion in somewhere but I feel that's a little premature. Thoughts?
Carbonated Energy Drink
Apologies seem to be in order. Clearly I've lost my sense of humour.
This is also a classic case of 2 people looking at the same thing and seeing completely different things. So let's run through how I managed to read something other than what was written.
1. CO2 Cloud Joke
I actually thought your CO2 post was a joke referencing this. I did think it was a joke, but perhaps I took it a bit more seriously than I should have. Ok, I'm definitely more morbid than most.
2. Carbon Sequestration and Petrochemical Plants
Hmm. I guess I mis-read the implications of your paragraph:
Carbon sequestration as you seem to point out, is a comparatively mild attempt at reducing carbon emissions compared to merely leaving fuel in the ground. And I'm even more skeptical of the total amount of CO2 emissions avoided because of things like this:
When people say carbon sequestration, I think of increased fossil fuel extraction first. The economic implications of greater extraction also explains why people seem so keen on carbon sequestration. These might not be standard or even fair conclusions to draw from your comments, I'll agree, but they were honestly the first things I understood from those sentences.
I should also be the first to admit that I don't personally know if the increased Gas extraction through carbon sequestration results in a net gain or or loss in total CO2 emissions. If you have anything that shows carbon sequestration is on net reducing emissions, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
3. Wind Power
My point was that Australia's attempts at reducing carbon output are largely illusory. Considering that it controls a significant amount of energy resources, I'm wondering if restricting output might be a more effective means of controlling emissions. I find that most of the attempts to lower Australia's natural carbon emissions end up merely adjusting supply chains so that emissions happen overseas.
South Australia for example has made serious attempts at making investments in Wind Power. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical when I say that I believe that these investments in alternative energy are being paid for by taxation on the export of fossil fuels. That being said there's a serious possibility that all the money going to CSIRO and the like will be able to make significant advancements in alternative energy that will ultimately offset the carbon being emitted to fuel its research. Then again, that's largely uncertain.
But this leaves me a little confused. Was your post just an interesting exercise in contemplating the quantities of CO2 being sequestered and emitted? Was it an investigation of what is meant to be good for the environment? I seem to have lost the plot here.
This is also a classic case of 2 people looking at the same thing and seeing completely different things. So let's run through how I managed to read something other than what was written.
1. CO2 Cloud Joke
I actually thought your CO2 post was a joke referencing this. I did think it was a joke, but perhaps I took it a bit more seriously than I should have. Ok, I'm definitely more morbid than most.
2. Carbon Sequestration and Petrochemical Plants
Hmm. I guess I mis-read the implications of your paragraph:
What's that, you ask? Haha, well it's funny, but carbon sequestration tends to coexist with petrochemical plants. The Gorgon Gas Project is designed to produce 1.1 billion billion cubic metres of natural gas a year. That's a billion times larger than the carbon dioxide annual input.
Carbon sequestration as you seem to point out, is a comparatively mild attempt at reducing carbon emissions compared to merely leaving fuel in the ground. And I'm even more skeptical of the total amount of CO2 emissions avoided because of things like this:
... meaning that even when they are considered depleted, many natural gas reservoirs contain significant natural gas that can be potentially recovered by enhanced gas recovery processes associated with injecting CO2 for carbon sequestration. This additional gas recovery can be used to offset the cost of CO2 injection.
When people say carbon sequestration, I think of increased fossil fuel extraction first. The economic implications of greater extraction also explains why people seem so keen on carbon sequestration. These might not be standard or even fair conclusions to draw from your comments, I'll agree, but they were honestly the first things I understood from those sentences.
I should also be the first to admit that I don't personally know if the increased Gas extraction through carbon sequestration results in a net gain or or loss in total CO2 emissions. If you have anything that shows carbon sequestration is on net reducing emissions, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
3. Wind Power
My point was that Australia's attempts at reducing carbon output are largely illusory. Considering that it controls a significant amount of energy resources, I'm wondering if restricting output might be a more effective means of controlling emissions. I find that most of the attempts to lower Australia's natural carbon emissions end up merely adjusting supply chains so that emissions happen overseas.
South Australia for example has made serious attempts at making investments in Wind Power. But perhaps I'm a little too cynical when I say that I believe that these investments in alternative energy are being paid for by taxation on the export of fossil fuels. That being said there's a serious possibility that all the money going to CSIRO and the like will be able to make significant advancements in alternative energy that will ultimately offset the carbon being emitted to fuel its research. Then again, that's largely uncertain.
But this leaves me a little confused. Was your post just an interesting exercise in contemplating the quantities of CO2 being sequestered and emitted? Was it an investigation of what is meant to be good for the environment? I seem to have lost the plot here.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Energy Drunk
I'm writing in response to this article.
Eh, excuse me. Australia does not pollute. It sells fossil fuels to China. If the Chinese decide to burn it and emit carbon, is that Australia's fault? I mean who knows what they do with it anyway? Maybe they just use it in cooking. Have you ever eaten Duck Rice? Describe it in 1 word. Oily. Explains everything.
So maybe, just maybe, they burn some of it and I mean everyone knows their energy plants aren't necessarily as clean or well maintained or as efficient as they could be, but you know really, I mean Australia doesn't sell that much fuel to China. According to the Australian Government in the financial year 07-08 it was only:
$205m of Coal
$204m of Liquid Propane and Butane
$646m of Crude Petroleum
It's not that much carbon, compared to say the fact that Australia sells a lot more coal to Japan, the EU, India, Korea, Brazil and Tawian. And that's just coal. The total crude oil exported by Australia is about 16 times what it sells to China.
Besides, Australia is committed to environmental protection and reductions in carbon emissions throughthe import of products manufactured in China using raw materials sold by Australia use of alternative energy sources. Like when Oil went up to 140US a barrel and we started considering the alternative energy source of shale oil.
I mean the IEA counts carbon emissions by country and clearly the problem is with China. Or if you go by per capita, it's with the US. Either way it's not with Australia.
So please note, Australia doesn't pollute. You don't blame a dealer when someone ends up in a hospital OD-ing.
Eh, excuse me. Australia does not pollute. It sells fossil fuels to China. If the Chinese decide to burn it and emit carbon, is that Australia's fault? I mean who knows what they do with it anyway? Maybe they just use it in cooking. Have you ever eaten Duck Rice? Describe it in 1 word. Oily. Explains everything.
So maybe, just maybe, they burn some of it and I mean everyone knows their energy plants aren't necessarily as clean or well maintained or as efficient as they could be, but you know really, I mean Australia doesn't sell that much fuel to China. According to the Australian Government in the financial year 07-08 it was only:
$205m of Coal
$204m of Liquid Propane and Butane
$646m of Crude Petroleum
It's not that much carbon, compared to say the fact that Australia sells a lot more coal to Japan, the EU, India, Korea, Brazil and Tawian. And that's just coal. The total crude oil exported by Australia is about 16 times what it sells to China.
Besides, Australia is committed to environmental protection and reductions in carbon emissions through
I mean the IEA counts carbon emissions by country and clearly the problem is with China. Or if you go by per capita, it's with the US. Either way it's not with Australia.
So please note, Australia doesn't pollute. You don't blame a dealer when someone ends up in a hospital OD-ing.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Drug War Friendly Fire
Goddamit. I'm sick again. I've gotten the flu. Normally this means antibiotics + flu meds and I'm good to go. This time however, things are shit.
I went to the doctor, got a prescription for antibiotics. So far so good. I go down to the pharmacy. The only non-drowsy nasal decongestant they have is Sudafed PE Non-Drowsy. Ok. I look to see if there is any cheaper/generic option. None is available. I buy both drugs.
I fail to notice that on the Sudafed box is a small blue band that says PSEUDOEPHEDRINE FREE. Little did I know that because Meth cooks have been using Sudafed, the makers of Sudafed, Johnson and Johnson have decided to now market Sudafed with Phenylephrine as the active ingredient.
Now I'm normally not one to look a gift horse in the mouth and criticise the drugs I've been given, but the only reason I'm writing this now is because Phenylephrine is total shit. It's usless. Doesn't do a damn thing. It's non-drowsy because it's non-anything. If you look at the wikipedia link to Phenylephrine above, you'll notice that at the bottom, there is some dispute as to whether or not Pehnlephrine works any better than a placebo. Guess what guys? It fucking sucks.
Now the article on Pseudoephedrine mentions that you can still purchase the stuff in Australia although it has to be stored behind the counter of the pharmacist. Fuck. How was I to know this? So kids, keep this in mind for future reference: Ask for Pseudoephedrine - Accept No Substitutes!
I went to the doctor, got a prescription for antibiotics. So far so good. I go down to the pharmacy. The only non-drowsy nasal decongestant they have is Sudafed PE Non-Drowsy. Ok. I look to see if there is any cheaper/generic option. None is available. I buy both drugs.
I fail to notice that on the Sudafed box is a small blue band that says PSEUDOEPHEDRINE FREE. Little did I know that because Meth cooks have been using Sudafed, the makers of Sudafed, Johnson and Johnson have decided to now market Sudafed with Phenylephrine as the active ingredient.
Now I'm normally not one to look a gift horse in the mouth and criticise the drugs I've been given, but the only reason I'm writing this now is because Phenylephrine is total shit. It's usless. Doesn't do a damn thing. It's non-drowsy because it's non-anything. If you look at the wikipedia link to Phenylephrine above, you'll notice that at the bottom, there is some dispute as to whether or not Pehnlephrine works any better than a placebo. Guess what guys? It fucking sucks.
Now the article on Pseudoephedrine mentions that you can still purchase the stuff in Australia although it has to be stored behind the counter of the pharmacist. Fuck. How was I to know this? So kids, keep this in mind for future reference: Ask for Pseudoephedrine - Accept No Substitutes!
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Abort.
This is a most disturbing article from Esquire on Warren Hern, the last late-term abortion doctor. Made me want to retch, weep and curl up into a ball. Nothing gets you like the surreal nature of the lifestyle that he has to keep just to do what he thinks is right.
Chinese Passive Aggression
Ha. Ok. So It's been a while. I've meant to post lots of things but somehow never got around to it. I return now with some Chinese lols.
As some of you who've read this blog may know I find it hilarious when Chinese citizens do this passive aggressive shit to their government. It completely ruins the whole conspiratorial tone of how the West tends to portray "The Chinese", as if attempting to conflate the Citizens of China, the further regions of the country, the highly regional provinces, the unchecked businesses that operate in China, the PLA and the men in suits in Beijing. Ha.
So apparently, Chinese statisticians are apparently not too keen on the fact that the published economic data might not really have a basis in reality. Money quote:
As some of you who've read this blog may know I find it hilarious when Chinese citizens do this passive aggressive shit to their government. It completely ruins the whole conspiratorial tone of how the West tends to portray "The Chinese", as if attempting to conflate the Citizens of China, the further regions of the country, the highly regional provinces, the unchecked businesses that operate in China, the PLA and the men in suits in Beijing. Ha.
So apparently, Chinese statisticians are apparently not too keen on the fact that the published economic data might not really have a basis in reality. Money quote:
The Global Times, controlled by the People’s Daily, the Communist party mouthpiece, reported that the public reacted with “banter and sarcasm” to NBS figures showing average urban wages in China rose 13 per cent in the first half to $2,142.....
... The criticism has prompted the NBS to launch a campaign last week, entitled “Statistical Feelings: We have walked together – Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of New China,” to boost confidence among statisticians.The campaign has already produced works such as: “I’m proud to be a brick in the statistical building of the republic.” In another poem, a contributor writes: “I can rearrange the stars in the sky because I have statistics.”
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Minor Update
How do you not want to read this nyt article on the future of Porn film plots? Choice quote:
I'm not even sure what the fuck "an almost Romeo-and-Juliet story" means. Does anyone?
Also, to balance out the recent Matt Taibbi rants against Wall St, we have some good Michael Lewis in VF doing an article on the insides of AIGFP. I love the fact the he seems to be one of the few Wall St reporters who seems to identify with and yet distance himself from the traders.
“The feature is not as big a part of the industry today,” Mr. Orenstein said. But he says he still plans two to three bigger-budget releases each year, including the recently shot “2040,” which is about the pornography business of the future. Mr. Orenstein described the movie as “an almost Romeo-and-Juliet story between an aging porn star and a cyborg.”
I'm not even sure what the fuck "an almost Romeo-and-Juliet story" means. Does anyone?
Also, to balance out the recent Matt Taibbi rants against Wall St, we have some good Michael Lewis in VF doing an article on the insides of AIGFP. I love the fact the he seems to be one of the few Wall St reporters who seems to identify with and yet distance himself from the traders.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Flu Away
Some of you may know that Sam Chan postponed his trip to Australia recently because his mom feared swine flu. Ironically, I now have the flu. (Not the swine kind, but still.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
