RE: [Fis] Sustainable use of resources

Dear Pavel,
 
I agree that information can only have a "value" or a "meaning" with
reference to a structure. Using the model of autopoiesis the information
is produced within one or more communication systems. These systems
contain structure (redundancy) since otherwise they would be "dead". One
expect the "value" to be shaped in the longer run with reference to the
eigenvectors of the network. (Thus, values can be different in different
systems.) The eigenvectors can function as the axes of codification
insofar as they are stabilized over time.
 
"Meaning" adds a reflexive element to the dynamic. While "value" can
historically be stabilized, "meaning" globalizes from a hindsight
perspective because we are also able to abandon previous values. The
communication of meaning adds another layer to the system (as you note).

 
I am less clear about what you mean with a concrete wall. I assume that
this is a metaphor. In fully developed evolutionary systems it tends to
be always "five for twelve". This can also be considered as
self-organized criticality (on the edge of chaos).
 
With kind regards,
 
 
Loet

-----Original Message-----
From: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es]
On Behalf Of ????? ????? ????????
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:48 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: RE: [Fis] Sustainable use of resources

Dear Pedro and others,

a discussion on value, and on its connection with human evolution, is
indeed important for resolution of "sustainability" issue. Let me
provide a small speculation.

In the paper which I have mentioned
(http://www.geocities.com/pluksha/papers/New_appr_info.pdf), I argue
that information has a dimension of axiology, or its value, which is
interconnected with "optimality" of its activities. What could be a
criterion for this optimality? - I could think of two: (1) evolutionary
criterion, that is, information assuring better "survival" (or,
self-maintenance of a system [and its copies, in case of
self-reproducing systems] for longer time) is more valuable; (2)
thermodynamic criterion, that is, information that assures achievement
of the same goal with fewer resources is more valuable.

This concerns the value of information (the other side of which, as it
is argued, is regulation, or program - that is, a transformating
activity). Evolution of information systems presses for selection of
those with a more valuable information.

For complex information systems, such as multicellular organisms and
social agents (individuals, and institutes), mechanisms of stimulation
of more valuable (and avoidance of less valuable) behaviour were
developed: such is a mechanism of pleasure / pain in organic life, and a
mechanism of social support / reproach in social life. Over very long
periods of time, these mechanisms have proven their viability, although
sometimes they can break: e.g. chemical compounds such as alchogol and
drugs break the chemical basis of mechanism of pleasure; similarly, I
would interprete use of advertisment by contemporary capitalism as a
"break" in mechanism of social support (people tend to choose something
because everyone else like it; but nobody likes it yet, it is only
advertisment that tells us everyone like it).

Following this logic, no objects in the "outside world", in the
environment of a society [both "external"/natural, and
"internal"/artificial], have value by themselves. They can only have
value in respect to a given information system (e.g. a social
individual), a "mode of use" for this object by this system, and a value
of this "mode of use" (or this type of activity, or this information).
For example, for purpose of hammering, a microscope would have less
value than a hammer itself; for purpose of drinking, water has more
value than oil; and hammer is less valuable than water for someone dying
of thirst. This resembles a concept of "consumer value" which has been
discussed by classical economists, though somewhat "natural consumer
value" (which, as I remarked, is determined by value of the activity
itself).

I do not want to elaborate on how this "natural value" is transformed
into price of an object (economists have this discussion for some 300
years), but it is evident that oil, and other minerals, do have value in
a society. Society that started to use them (Western technology based
civilization) has proven to be more efficient than its opponents (e.g.
agrarian civilizations of the East and those of Africa). More valuable
information, and more valuable behavior has been selected in the course
of social evolution. Machines built of metal and plastics, and running
on gasoline, reduce human efforts to achieve same results
["thermodynamic criterion"] and help a better survival [level of
mortality achieved in contemporary Western civilization is unmatched =
"evolutionary criterion"]. Western civilization is admired, in
particular by itself, for these achievements.

So why is discussion there? What is a problem? The problem is that we
humans have prognostic capabiilities, that allow us to forecast
consequences of our actions. This trait helped the humanity to become
what it is: otherwise, no technology and no science would have been
possible (technology "expects" a result, and science tries to predict a
result). And our prognostic capabilities tell us that this very
efficient organization of Western social life is a blindway running into
a big concrete wall. Heroine brings pleasure, indeed; but it also brings
swift death, so smart people avoid it. Our built-in evolutionary
mechanisms of pleasure do not help us to avoid it, but our conciousness
and our willpower do help. Similarly, our society is on the "oil drug"
or "mineral drug". No evolutionary developed mechanisms of mass decision
taking, such as markets, or moral institutions, can help us to avoid it.
We like it (fast cars, computers, jets, ships, robots, large buildings
etc.), but our social mind has started to realize that death is coming.

So the major question, in my opinion, is NOT that oil is not valued
socially; it is. But the market mechanism is broken, it helps us to stay
on drug, it does not predict anything about possible upcoming shortage.
So, our society needs both reason and strong will to "jump off the
needle": a sophisticated program is needed to change economic structure
that will have minimal dependency on deficit mineral resources. I wrote
about such possible program in my previous posting: (1) socio-economic
agents share responsibility for restoration of resources (increasing
their responsibility about misuse of resources); (2) governments start
economic resturcturing that in 20-25 years will help industries to
shift towards bio-based technologies (from non-renewable towards
renewable resources).

Maybe this is a little chaotic, but I hope it is comprehendable.

Best regards,

Pavel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" [mailto:marijuan@unizar.es]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 14:23
> To: fis-listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainable use of resources
>
>
> Dear Sergio and colleagues,
>
> Many thanks for your insightful comments. Let me improvise
> some further
> points. Actually I was willing to spend some days reading the
> papers cited
> during the last week, particularly Luis' bibliographic
> compilation, but
> here there are some brief ideas:
>
> -- The final direction of Gordon Scarrott's views on value
> (exemplified
> by the germane 'notary rule' of Valero) was that economic
> systems contain
> an inborn trend toward a natural state. Roughly, it would the
> hyperbolic or
> 'Pareto distribution'. It can be approached by purely
> mathematical terms in
> different ways, but my favorite one is the partitional scheme
> followed by
> Karl Javorszky (see a couple of his messages a few days
> ago)... To put it
> very briefly: my opinion is that the discussion on value (and
> utility)
> might be connected with central themes of biological theory,
> and that it
> finally revolves upon human Fitness and adaptability. This could lead
> towards a 'naturalization' of the economy in several senses... or its
> 'informationalization' perhaps. (But more will follow next
> week trying to
> connect more rigorously with your very cogent explanations on
> value--by the
> way, in what extent are your views 'mainstream' respect
> current economic
> schools?).
>
> -- In the eMergy analysis you mention, as applied to
> ecosystems, I see a
> paradox. How would do you evaluate a high level predator, just by
> considering the multiplicative relation with the biomass at
> the lower level
> in the trophic interaction? A wolf for instance would be
> eMergetically 100
> times more valuable than, say, an oak? I tend to disagree
> that one really
> captures the relevant organizational relations of ecosystem
> networks in
> that eMergetic way (it would be OK about 'simple' resources).
> Ecologically,
> some parties have advocated here 'ascendancy' theory by
> Ulanowicz (see
> Jerry, and also I think Loet and Pavel).
>
> -- For the viability of the economic reform you suggest at
> the end, such
> monumental a cultural change should occur in advance! I really cannot
> imagine it. See for instance the existing 'international
> order'... In other
> words, the dense interrelation of contemporary problems has
> put social
> evolution in a very, very difficult situation. I do not like
> the Cassandra
> role, but civilized options are not in sight yet.
>
> Best greetings
>
> Pedro
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
Received on Tue Nov 25 13:10:31 2003