Food production over time

[bart]

Re: Food production over time

...

These notions that humanity is some how to blame for everything that we think is wrong with the world is sophisticated elite programming, as psycopaths almost always convince their victims that their victims are to blame for what is happening to them. I've grown very tired of this technique, and hit the ceiling when I see it parrotted in the public.
...

Precisely, but at least the general concept about the real existence of actual psychopaths (excluding the obvious ones like the shooter in Aurora etc.) is growing the last few years, slowly but surely. It's one of the toughest things in life to get a decent understanding of, including how to reliably spot them. IMHO, they're also senior to supply & demand.

I'm not trying to discount that greed itself and other human foibles aren't widespread, but there's a huge difference between "average human greed" and that evidenced by those psycho types who turn it up to 9 or 10 and also have the ability and power and control to foist it upon large groups. They're also quite aware of all the PR tricks, ala Bernays.

(edit/add: there is some truth in my opinion to "programming" but its covered pretty well by the concept of "unconscious conspiracies" - http://viridia.org/2007/08/16/unconscious-conspiracies/ )

[leegs]

Re: Food production over time

Reggie & Bart - I take to heart your comments that the great majority of humanity isn't so bad, its the psychopaths that are the real problem. However I can only take so much comfort in this, considering the degree to which the great majority of humanity seems to be unable to think for themselves and hence are so easily manipulated by the psychopaths. Religion* is one example of this - people seem to nearly universally adopt the religion that they were exposed to as children, no questions asked. The effectiveness of advertising is another example. Various anecdotes reported here on iTulip about the difficulty we (iTulipers) communicating what we learn here to our friends and family provide other examples.

What is it I wonder that allows such a relatively small proportion of humanity to think independently? Its not intelligence.



* Regarding religion - its not my point in this post to disparage religion, only to use it as an example of groupthink, for better or worse.

[bart]

Re: Food production over time

Reggie & Bart - I take to heart your comments that the great majority of humanity isn't so bad, its the psychopaths that are the real problem. However I can only take so much comfort in this, considering the degree to which the great majority of humanity seems to be unable to think for themselves and hence are so easily manipulated by the psychopaths. Religion* is one example of this - people seem to nearly universally adopt the religion that they were exposed to as children, no questions asked. The effectiveness of advertising is another example. Various anecdotes reported here on iTulip about the difficulty we (iTulipers) communicating what we learn here to our friends and family provide other examples.

What is it I wonder that allows such a relatively small proportion of humanity to think independently? Its not intelligence.



* Regarding religion - its not my point in this post to disparage religion, only to use it as an example of groupthink, for better or worse.

My $.02 worth, and of course in tinfoil hat mode, is that there's no simple answer.

BUT, asking the question the other way (as in "What is it I wonder that prevents such a large proportion of humanity from thinking independently?") may help open a door to better understanding or perhaps encourage discussion, etc.

[jk]

Re: Food production over time

My $.02 worth, and of course in tinfoil hat mode, is that there's no simple answer.

BUT, asking the question the other way (as in "What is it I wonder that prevents such a large proportion of humanity from thinking independently?") may help open a door to better understanding or perhaps encourage discussion, etc.

there is something called "conventional wisdom," which exists because of herding - seeking the security of sharing beliefs with the crowd - and because of laziness or indifference - not having enough interest to make the effort to think things through independently. there also those who don't have the capacity, let alone the knowledge, to think these things through. "herding" avoids the anxiety of holding a belief without a lot of social confirmation. and what is called "conventional wisdom" is by definition conventional by virtue of its wide acceptance.

a website like this allows us to select our own virtual sub-herd, which pursues interests, holds ideas, and uses methods with which we feel comfortable, but which most of our meatspace social contacts don't share. this community [sounds nicer than saying "our sub-herd, here"] provides psychological support along with its intellectual content, making it easier for us to hold onto our current shared understandings in spite of their deviance from conventional wisdom.

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

You have made the mistake of reading what you want, not what is written and intended. I don't say that greed doesn't exist. I'm saying that not only does it exist, but it is basically universal.

...

You seem to believe that profit is or can be a dirty word. On the contrary, profit is the best incentive ever devised to provide people with what they need and want. The definition of profit is one of a positive difference between price and cost. Cost is always borne by someone, and price is always paid by someone. In a market economy, the prospect of profit doesn't just drive people to charge as high a price as they can, but it also incentivizes them to become as efficient as they can in reducing the costs of supplying whatever they do. This doesn't just work for existing suppliers, but for all potential suppliers. If there is "windfall" profits in a given industry, that gives everyone else the incentive to enter that industry and supply more of what the people obviously want.

I fear the one reading what is wanted isn't me - it is you. I've never been against profit. I don't think socialism is the end-all, be-all. I do think we as an American society have gone way too far into the 'greed is good' end of the spectrum and should return to the center, but that's just my view.

As part of the above view, I recognize that there is such a thing as too much greed. Your view is that all greed is good - you lump the desire to well for oneself equally with the desire to do well for oneself at the expense of everyone else.

What we're living today isn't a result of accident or unforeseen consequences.

It is a direct result of deliberate actions in pursuit of both short and long term goals.

If you choose to see something else instead, then more power to you.

I simply do not agree.

Actually, the term market control is almost exclusively used in terms of government actually stepping into the marketplace to literally control one or more aspects of it (i.e. price).

Sorry, I don't play your definition games.

Control is very straightforward: those in control can move the market the way they want.

Intel when it wants to kill a competitor, it drops the prices in the price segment it is less competitive in - thus preventing the 'market' from rewarding the competitor. This is control.

Microsoft when it wants to horn into a new category, produces a similar product then bundles it for free into all PCs. This is control.

There are innumerable other examples in history where control does not require legislative fiat.

If you refuse to recognize this reality, then so be it.

It is not "utterly wrong," it is actually quite useful in essentially all circumstances. For instance, with all due respect to EJ, the price of oil is certainly subject to supply and demand fundamentals.

Wrong. Supply and demand didn't double, triple, half, or otherwise change dramatically in just days or months.

No doubt you're going to say that all activity whether speculative or fraudulent or political/geopolitical falls somewhere into supply and demand, but the reality is quite straightforward: there were no shortfalls.

Equally so when rumors of an impending Middle East crisis drives up prices - there is no supply or demand shift. The flows go on as they normally do.

You are wrong in the second paragraph. Supply is what is available, and can include futures. You can sell promises as much as you can sell goods. You can sell services too; what is a barbershop's "inventory" of haircuts? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Unfortunately you're still missing the point - which is that the supply and demand is irrelevant. In a monopoly situation, the monopoly holder can and does whatever they want to do.

Actually, you have brought up a great example of Supply and Demand in action. De Beers does a lot of work to restrict the supply of diamonds available to the market, and hence benefit from the correspondingly higher price. One of the four fundamental principles of supply and demand is that when supply is reduced, prices tend to rise and demand tends to be reduced because of the rise in prices.

Yes, I am glad I chose this example. According to you, the cartel which is de Beers has no control, yet is able to restrict supply on the market and therefore raise prices.

Hmmm.

The problem is, of course, that diamonds are a luxury good and so it doesn't really matter if the prices are high - except perhaps for the oil drillers.

The same applied to food, to energy, to jobs, to health care - not acceptable to me.

I think collusive, monopolistic/oligopolistic behavior is bad; you apparently don't.

Again, the stadium doesn't have a real monopoly, but it does have a slight appearance of one.

I'm still waiting for the example of where a sports team moved into another privately owned stadium right next door because there are so many stadium choices available.

Even monopolies cannot charge "what they want," lest they invite competition.

This can be true, but is not true in all cases. You are assuming that there can always be competition, when in reality there is not.

Actually, quite the opposite. Monopolies do exist, and they are typically government-supported and government-protected.

Wrong again. Your above statement is consistent with your beliefs - given that you refuse to admit that control can exist without government mandate. Yet there are all sorts of examples of control without government mandate like de Beers.

Where is de Beers government support and protection?

It is also interesting that you define the service provided by airlines the way you have. They don't offer or sell "air," they supply seating, space and some amenities on habitable aircraft that go from predetermined locations to predetermined locations. It is not costless to pressurize an aircraft to a comfortable degree as essentially all airliners do above a certain altitude, but the costs of not doing so are greater. In fact it airliners constantly strive for the right balance between customer comfort and aircraft wear and tear, since pressurizing the cabin induces additional stress on the structure of the aircraft. Customers demand certain things from airliners, and airliners supply them--even air, which in that circumstance isn't free. Customers are charged for the trip and for some amenities including luggage space; pressurized cabins are generally just part of the trip charge. A whole package is sold with some extras added on at additional cost. Charging for air, if it ever happened, might seem "greedy and egregious" to simple people, but it wouldn't necessarily be unjustified if your choice was between cabins pressurized to different degrees. I, for one, would certainly choose to pay for the costs of pressurizing the air and for the increased stress created by making the airplane fuselage into a pressure vessel, even if ignorant folk in the press or elsewhere call it "charging for free air!!!"

Sturm and Drang over nothing. The above comments have been used numerous times in the past: to justify company stores in company towns whereby the company would extract even more from workers than their pay among other examples.

The point which you completely overlook is that air is something inherently necessary for people. To charge for air - whether with the excuse of different pressurization levels or whatever - is a naked grab for more money.

But then again you've already said that 'Greed is Good' and the 'The Invisible Hand will fix all', so what's to worry about?

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

BUT, asking the question the other way (as in "What is it I wonder that prevents such a large proportion of humanity from thinking independently?") may help open a door to better understanding or perhaps encourage discussion, etc.

There are innumerable possibilities, but my own view is that the basis is Trust.

Trust exists not just as an altruistic activity, but also as a means to achieve greater efficiency. Trusting those in charge and/or your fellow man to do the right thing in areas you don't have direct expertise or involvement in is likely a fundamental human trait

jk's comment is also relevant; on top of or sometimes in place of trust is the desire/need to conform. However, in the context of the US, I think the need to conform is more an enforcement mechanism than it is a cause.

The US places far more trust - warranted or unwarranted - in its institutions, leaders and people than anywhere else.

The cynicism I've seen in so many other places is the result of generations of abuse. This is hopeful in the sense that the aforementioned culture of trust in the US isn't going to disappear overnight, but is not hopeful in the sense that there is so much more abuse that can/will occur, perhaps exactly because of this.

[bart]

Re: Food production over time

There are innumerable possibilities, but my own view is that the basis is Trust.

Trust exists not just as an altruistic activity, but also as a means to achieve greater efficiency. Trusting those in charge and/or your fellow man to do the right thing in areas you don't have direct expertise or involvement in is likely a fundamental human trait

jk's comment is also relevant; on top of or sometimes in place of trust is the desire/need to conform. However, in the context of the US, I think the need to conform is more an enforcement mechanism than it is a cause.

The US places far more trust - warranted or unwarranted - in its institutions, leaders and people than anywhere else.

The cynicism I've seen in so many other places is the result of generations of abuse. This is hopeful in the sense that the aforementioned culture of trust in the US isn't going to disappear overnight, but is not hopeful in the sense that there is so much more abuse that can/will occur, perhaps exactly because of this.

Agreed on trust, and it's also the primary area that PR people prey on - quite the double edged sword. :-(


Cool point about the US and the track history of trust in the establishment (a concept by the way that started in roughly the late 40s under Truman) and that was a rallying cry in the 60s with the "anti-establishment" meme.

The encouraging and hopeful aspect these days for me is that many 20 and 30 somethings that I know are going through some painful times, trying to adjust to a hugely different reality than had been sold and "edookated" into them - "hope and change" having been a large make/break point, and OWS being part of their real education.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Food production over time

There are innumerable possibilities, but my own view is that the basis is Trust.

Trust exists not just as an altruistic activity, but also as a means to achieve greater efficiency. Trusting those in charge and/or your fellow man to do the right thing in areas you don't have direct expertise or involvement in is likely a fundamental human trait

jk's comment is also relevant; on top of or sometimes in place of trust is the desire/need to conform. However, in the context of the US, I think the need to conform is more an enforcement mechanism than it is a cause.

The US places far more trust - warranted or unwarranted - in its institutions, leaders and people than anywhere else.

The cynicism I've seen in so many other places is the result of generations of abuse. This is hopeful in the sense that the aforementioned culture of trust in the US isn't going to disappear overnight, but is not hopeful in the sense that there is so much more abuse that can/will occur, perhaps exactly because of this.

Since this is a thread on food, its the same reason why food fads come and go in the US more than any other place in the world. What ever news comes about olive oil, Spanish, Greeks and Italians are just going to keep doing what they did for thousands of years. When Atkins came out, bread was tossed out as if it were a fashion. We have no established food culture. Culture is related to tribalism and identity. There was little established tribalism in the US to fall back on in lieu our institutions. If one was of the Mackenzie clan, they would not see themselves looking to the institutions of Scotland. That is why we don't understand the Middle East. Their institutions are their own extended families. When one of them takes control of an institution, you will see much worse than when the Irish took over a police precinct. The abuse is just the natural nepotism that accompanies tribalism.
We will fail because we became a multi-cultural society instead of a melting pot. We have the Mexican clans, Black clans, Jewish clan, white clans etc. That will weaken our institutions if in fact they are not already.

[BadJuju]

Re: Food production over time

The encouraging and hopeful aspect these days for me is that many 20 and 30 somethings that I know are going through some painful times, trying to adjust to a hugely different reality than had been sold and "edookated" into them - "hope and change" having been a large make/break point, and OWS being part of their real education.

As a guy in his mid-20s, the financial crisis has really changed me. I have become ultra-frugal because of it. And my expectations of consumption and future success are dramatically reduced.

[Ghent12]

Re: Food production over time

I fear the one reading what is wanted isn't me - it is you. I've never been against profit. I don't think socialism is the end-all, be-all. I do think we as an American society have gone way too far into the 'greed is good' end of the spectrum and should return to the center, but that's just my view.

As part of the above view, I recognize that there is such a thing as too much greed. Your view is that all greed is good - you lump the desire to well for oneself equally with the desire to do well for oneself at the expense of everyone else.

What we're living today isn't a result of accident or unforeseen consequences.

It is a direct result of deliberate actions in pursuit of both short and long term goals.

If you choose to see something else instead, then more power to you.

I simply do not agree.

We can certainly agree to disagree, but you are disagreeing to things which I have not really said. I don't say that all greed is good, but rather that unfettered greed can certainly bring about good.

What you call "at the expense of everyone else" is quite a tricky, and I would argue useless, phrase. Every single dollar of profit is, by definition, at the expense of someone else. If you earned a profit, you did so because someone paid more for whatever you were selling than it cost you to make it. You profited from them! Therefore you cannot simultaneously hold the view that profit can be good, but greed at the expense of someone else is not.

Sorry, I don't play your definition games.

Control is very straightforward: those in control can move the market the way they want.

Intel when it wants to kill a competitor, it drops the prices in the price segment it is less competitive in - thus preventing the 'market' from rewarding the competitor. This is control.

Microsoft when it wants to horn into a new category, produces a similar product then bundles it for free into all PCs. This is control.

There are innumerable other examples in history where control does not require legislative fiat.

If you refuse to recognize this reality, then so be it.

What you have stated are not forms of market control. This isn't a definition game, but definitions do matter. You have masterfully illustrated examples of influence that business can exert because of the control they actually do have over their processes.

Wrong. Supply and demand didn't double, triple, half, or otherwise change dramatically in just days or months.

No doubt you're going to say that all activity whether speculative or fraudulent or political/geopolitical falls somewhere into supply and demand, but the reality is quite straightforward: there were no shortfalls.

Equally so when rumors of an impending Middle East crisis drives up prices - there is no supply or demand shift. The flows go on as they normally do.

Your last example illustrates an implication of supply and demand quite well. Human beings are capable of perception, and they are capable of prediction of future events. The degree of success varies, but prices can shift due to a perceived future glut or contraction in supply, just as they can shift to match an expectation of a change in demand.

You can supply appointments for a barber's seat. You can supply IOU's for oil or money. You can supply obligations just as much as you can supply real goods and services in the present.

Unfortunately you're still missing the point - which is that the supply and demand is irrelevant. In a monopoly situation, the monopoly holder can and does whatever they want to do.



Yes, I am glad I chose this example. According to you, the cartel which is de Beers has no control, yet is able to restrict supply on the market and therefore raise prices.

Actually you have found one of the few examples of a private entity that actually does have market control. This is more of an exception that proves the rule, in a manner of speaking. I'll let slide the fact that De Beers receives help from governments around the world in its efforts to control the market of diamonds.

The problem is, of course, that diamonds are a luxury good and so it doesn't really matter if the prices are high - except perhaps for the oil drillers.

The same applied to food, to energy, to jobs, to health care - not acceptable to me.

I think collusive, monopolistic/oligopolistic behavior is bad; you apparently don't.

Actually, I do think that monopolies are bad when they exercise monopoly pricing. When they do not or cannot, then there is nothing really wrong with them. In fact, when they exercise their power to bring things to people very cheaply, such as your example of Microsoft offering things such as Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player as a free bonus to their operating system, I see that as something great. Just the threat of competition from the likes of WinAmp, RealPlayer, Netscape, and so forth brings about good results for the consumer, just as much as their actual competition. How can it be bad to get more for your money as a consumer?

I'm still waiting for the example of where a sports team moved into another privately owned stadium right next door because there are so many stadium choices available.

Well good luck finding one. Sports teams are generally beholden to their location, and stadiums are rather capital-intensive.

This can be true, but is not true in all cases. You are assuming that there can always be competition, when in reality there is not.

The threat of competition is often just as good as real competition.

Wrong again. Your above statement is consistent with your beliefs - given that you refuse to admit that control can exist without government mandate. Yet there are all sorts of examples of control without government mandate like de Beers.

Where is de Beers government support and protection?

Ask the Bushman population.

Sturm and Drang over nothing. The above comments have been used numerous times in the past: to justify company stores in company towns whereby the company would extract even more from workers than their pay among other examples.

Again, by definition, in order to make a profit you have to charge more than what you are offering costs you. In order to hire someone for a given amount in wages or salary, that person must be worth at least the wages or salaries you pay them. Perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning.

The point which you completely overlook is that air is something inherently necessary for people. To charge for air - whether with the excuse of different pressurization levels or whatever - is a naked grab for more money.

But then again you've already said that 'Greed is Good' and the 'The Invisible Hand will fix all', so what's to worry about?

I haven't overlooked that air is inherently necessary. So is food, water, clothing and shelter. All of those have prices associated with them. Are those naked grabs for more money? Greed plays a substantial role in improving the standards of living of people. Greed is what causes rotten food to be virtually absent in our supermarkets. Protecting people from the greed of landlords is what causes housing shortages and decay (i.e. rent control).

The simple fact is that air is not free to provide on an airliner, at least to a comfortable and/or survivable degree. When you buy a ticket for a trip on a high-flying airplane, you are already paying for the air they compress for you. You are already paying for the wear & tear that the pressurization does. It's already built in. I hope next time you fly, you appreciate the air that you have paid for which you breath in-between bites of food that you bought while sipping on a drink you purchased and spilled on the clothes you bought.

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

We can certainly agree to disagree, but you are disagreeing to things which I have not really said. I don't say that all greed is good, but rather that unfettered greed can certainly bring about good.

What you call "at the expense of everyone else" is quite a tricky, and I would argue useless, phrase. Every single dollar of profit is, by definition, at the expense of someone else. If you earned a profit, you did so because someone paid more for whatever you were selling than it cost you to make it. You profited from them! Therefore you cannot simultaneously hold the view that profit can be good, but greed at the expense of someone else is not.

You're still trying to blur the line.

The question is quite straightforward: is there such a thing as too much greed?

So far you haven't answered it.

You keep saying it can be good - or at least not bad. I agree with that.

You also say that anything can be defined as greed. I disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with being compensated for providing a good or service. The definition of what is adequate compensation is not straightforward, thus I can agree that the market - assuming there aren't major distortions like monopolies - can resolve this.

The free market, however, is not the end all, be all. It does not reward virtue necessarily any more than being more fit equates with survival. The myth of the invisible hand is that it always works, or even works in a consistent manner.

What you have stated are not forms of market control. This isn't a definition game, but definitions do matter. You have masterfully illustrated examples of influence that business can exert because of the control they actually do have over their processes.

Sorry, you're still playing definition games - and you continue to do so despite the fact that no one agrees with you.

The power to destroy is one path to the power to control. It isn't the only way to control, just as government fiat isn't the only manners/means of control.

You seek ideological justification by creating a false dichotomy and trying to shove everything into it.

Your last example illustrates an implication of supply and demand quite well. Human beings are capable of perception, and they are capable of prediction of future events. The degree of success varies, but prices can shift due to a perceived future glut or contraction in supply, just as they can shift to match an expectation of a change in demand.

You can supply appointments for a barber's seat. You can supply IOU's for oil or money. You can supply obligations just as much as you can supply real goods and services in the present.

Unfortunately you've just wandered onto a limb from which there is no return. If perception is all that matters, and it is equally clear that perception is not in any a reliable source of information, then the myth of the well informed market is now slain.

Actually you have found one of the few examples of a private entity that actually does have market control. This is more of an exception that proves the rule, in a manner of speaking. I'll let slide the fact that De Beers receives help from governments around the world in its efforts to control the market of diamonds.

The exception that proves the rule? That a multi-national company that does nothing but hoard diamonds and therefore controls the diamond market, even despite entire national governments arrayed against them (i.e. Russia), is yet still not enough to provide evidence that your view is at best flawed, so be it.

Actually, I do think that monopolies are bad when they exercise monopoly pricing. When they do not or cannot, then there is nothing really wrong with them. In fact, when they exercise their power to bring things to people very cheaply, such as your example of Microsoft offering things such as Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player as a free bonus to their operating system, I see that as something great. Just the threat of competition from the likes of WinAmp, RealPlayer, Netscape, and so forth brings about good results for the consumer, just as much as their actual competition. How can it be bad to get more for your money as a consumer?

Ah yes, the 'its free for me therefore it is good' analogy. So then when China rips off American intellectual property, thereby providing it free to its citizens, this is then good?

Well good luck finding one. Sports teams are generally beholden to their location, and stadiums are rather capital-intensive.

You're the one who said there is plenty of competition and alternatives to stadiums, and yet you're now saying what?

The threat of competition is often just as good as real competition.

The threat of competition only matters if the barrier to entry is low. For many industries, the barrier to entry is no such thing.

Ask the Bushman population.

De Beers doesn't get all its diamonds from South Africa, nor is South Africa the majority source of diamond in the world anymore. Thus unclear why the Bushmen matter.

Again, by definition, in order to make a profit you have to charge more than what you are offering costs you. In order to hire someone for a given amount in wages or salary, that person must be worth at least the wages or salaries you pay them. Perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning.

If you don't understand how company stores were used to recoup labor costs, then perhaps you should do some reading.

I haven't overlooked that air is inherently necessary. So is food, water, clothing and shelter. All of those have prices associated with them. Are those naked grabs for more money? Greed plays a substantial role in improving the standards of living of people. Greed is what causes rotten food to be virtually absent in our supermarkets. Protecting people from the greed of landlords is what causes housing shortages and decay (i.e. rent control).

The simple fact is that air is not free to provide on an airliner, at least to a comfortable and/or survivable degree. When you buy a ticket for a trip on a high-flying airplane, you are already paying for the air they compress for you. You are already paying for the wear & tear that the pressurization does. It's already built in. I hope next time you fly, you appreciate the air that you have paid for which you breath in-between bites of food that you bought while sipping on a drink you purchased and spilled on the clothes you bought.

I hope that you never wind up in a situation where you get charged extra fees for something inherently necessary. The attempt to charge a fee for using the restroom on an airplane comes to mind.

Sure, there is a cost associated with that, but to split this out as an extra fee is ludicrous, just as splitting our air cost as an extra fee is ludicrous.

[reggie]

Re: Food production over time

There are innumerable possibilities, but my own view is that the basis is Trust. Trust exists not just as an altruistic activity, but also as a means to achieve greater efficiency. Trusting those in charge and/or your fellow man to do the right thing in areas you don't have direct expertise or involvement in is likely a fundamental human trait.

The type of trust we see today, trust in large institutions, is largely engineered. Please take some time and study the work of the world's greatest scientists. You may start with the discussions at the 10 Macy Conferences (over the course of the mid-1900'), which I've discussed here previously.

[c1ue]

Re: Food production over time

The type of trust we see today, trust in large institutions, is largely engineered.

I'd agree that the trust in large institutions was attempted to be engineered.

This engineering, however, hasn't worked in Europe. IMO to me this indicates that it is the fundamental naivete of the American public that is the reason such trust exists rather than the engineering. That it is the largely unbroken record of 'institutional success' rather than anything else, just as people 'trust' a successful CEO like John Chambers - until his record of success breaks.

And equally that as ever more examples of why such trust is misplaced, occur, that said engineering will ultimately prove to be no different a fantasy than the many others before it.

[reggie]

Re: Food production over time

Reggie & Bart - I take to heart your comments that the great majority of humanity isn't so bad, its the psychopaths that are the real problem. However I can only take so much comfort in this, considering the degree to which the great majority of humanity seems to be unable to think for themselves and hence are so easily manipulated by the psychopaths. Religion* is one example of this - people seem to nearly universally adopt the religion that they were exposed to as children, no questions asked. The effectiveness of advertising is another example. Various anecdotes reported here on iTulip about the difficulty we (iTulipers) communicating what we learn here to our friends and family provide other examples. What is it I wonder that allows such a relatively small proportion of humanity to think independently? Its not intelligence. * Regarding religion - its not my point in this post to disparage religion, only to use it as an example of groupthink, for better or worse.

The effectiveness of institutional education is another great example, especially for those with advanced degrees or degrees from so-called high-brow universities. We're simply not taught to think for ourselves, we're just taught varying degrees of detail about a given system, but it is still a system with rigid borders. Stepping-outside these borders, especially for those with careers and reputations can be devastating for them, and in some cases even life threatening. But in short, this all goes to framing theory, that's the theory that describes how the brain perceives the world from a given perspective. Unfortunately, once established with the brain, it becomes a pattern of neural networks that have to be physically changed, and that's quite a challenge for our biology.

[reggie]

Re: Food production over time

I'd agree that the trust in large institutions was attempted to be engineered. This engineering, however, hasn't worked in Europe. IMO to me this indicates that it is the fundamental naivete of the American public that is the reason such trust exists rather than the engineering. That it is the largely unbroken record of 'institutional success' rather than anything else, just as people 'trust' a successful CEO like John Chambers - until his record of success breaks. And equally that as ever more examples of why such trust is misplaced, occur, that said engineering will ultimately prove to be no different a fantasy than the many others before it.

Well, it is also a breakdown in a real understanding of Christianity's message, which repeatedly told us not to trust institutions. This was not by accident, and was also engineered. As far as institutional success, our focus on that as an end has also been engineered, as we've been programmed to value a material world above all else.