Stephen Amell compared his role of Casey Jones to his role as Oliver Queen in Arrow : "Casey Jones is almost a little bit more like the Oliver Queen that people know from the older comic books. Brittany Ishibashi is a self-proclaimed "fangirl" of Karai. She auditioned for the role code-named "Female Soldier", correctly predicting it would be Karai. The Turtles are designed in this film to look more like their Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles versions: they look lighter green and wear harnesses as in the 87 series where they had on belts.
Casey Jones's equipment is taken from his appearance in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles : hockey pucks, an Eastman hockey stick the name on the stick is a tribute to "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" creator Kevin Eastman and skating wheels on his feet the only difference is that he gets the wheels from an office chair, while in the series he uses actual skates.
Bebop and Rocksteady's motorcycles were designed by motorcycle designer Paul Teutul Jr. Teutul has a cameo in the film, as an armed correctional officer behind Casey Jones when Shredder is loaded in the van at the beginning of the film. Punk and Billy Beyrer were considered, and auditioned for the role of Rocksteady. The Shredder's new gray-black spiked armor is based on his first armor in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Fred Armisen was originally meant to voice Krang, but he dropped out due to schedule conflicts and was replaced with Brad Garrett.
Both have worked for World Wrestling Entertainment during their wrestling careers. In Baxter Stockman's laboratory there is a chess board. In the scene when April O'Neil Megan Fox is first shown she is working undercover wearing a disguise. This is the first TMNT story where Casey Jones does not have long hair, when traditionally he wears a mullet; similarly, this is the first TMNT story where the Shredder has a beard, when traditionally he is clean-shaven. Steve Jablonsky composed an orchestral version of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme song to use in the film, but the filmmakers couldn't find a place where it could fit.
Instead, they used a more contemporary version of the theme song in the closing credits. In the Halloween parade, there is a man dressed up as the Transformer Bumblebee. Purwin and composer Steve Jablonsky were part of the "Transformers" live-action films; also Gary Anthony Williams and Brad Garrett had voiced Transformers in their career. During the truck chase, Raphael briefly rides a motorcycle. The slogans on the Turtle Tactical Truck are: "Tartaruga Brothers" "tartaruga" is Italian and Portuguese for "turtle" while "tortoise" is "testuggine". This is an original slogan, but the use of "shell" as a curseword comes from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Casey Jones works as a police officer.
This is a homage to the Turtles' ally Nobody, a police officer turned vigilante. According to his rap sheet Shredder was born on the 15th of April Ritchson was a linebacker and a main actor on the series, while Amell was the quarterback and was only in the first season. When Casey is being interrogated, he says the Turtles come from New Hampshire. Several bits of dialogue contain titles of the Beatles' songs.
Despite playing the oldest of the 4 turtles, Pete Ploszek is actually the youngest of the 4 actors playing the turtles. My favorite example of this is doctors who learn their patients are taking marijuana, refuse to keep prescribing them their vitally important drugs unless the patient promises to stop, and then gets surprised when the patients end up decompensating because the marijuana was keeping them together. And if you take it away without any replacement they will fall apart.
And the only redeeming feature of all of this is that the patients themselves know all of this stuff super-well and are usually happy to tell you if you ask. I expect it would have about the same effect for about the same reason. So fine, Scott is completely right here. Scott provides us with these great historical examples of local knowledge outdoing scientific acumen, but other stories present us with great historical examples of the opposite, and when to apply which heuristic seems really unclear.
This is understandable; Scott is a scholar of colonialism in Southeast Asia and there was a lot of agriculture and peasant resettling going on there. The book amply proves that peasants know an astounding amount about how to deal with local microclimates and grow local varieties of crops and so on, and frankly I am shocked that anyone with an IQ of less than has ever managed to be a peasant farmer, but how does that apply to the sorts of non-agricultural issues we think about more often?
Maybe this is a point in favor of something like libertarianism? But in cases there are literally about rich people trying to dictate to the poorest of the poor how they should live their lives, maybe this becomes more useful. He also points out that Tanzanian natives using their traditional farming practices were more productive than European colonists using scientific farming.
That would have put all of the other stuff in a pretty different light. I understand Scott is an anarchist. They kind of reminded me of some pictures of hunter-gatherer tribes, in terms of being self-sufficient, informal, and just never encountering the sorts of economic and political problems that we take for granted. They make communism the type with actual communes, not the type where you have Five Year Plans and Politburos and gulags look more attractive. I think Scott was trying to imply that this is the sort of thing we could have if not for governments demanding legibility and a world of universal formal rule codes accessible from the center?
And I wish there had been more about cultural evolution as separate from the more individual idea of metis. What relevance does this have for the LW-Yudkowsky-Bayesian rationalist project? I think the similarities are more than semantic; there certainly is a hope that learning domain-general skills will allow people to leverage raw intelligence and The Power Of Science to various different object-level domains. I also think that a good art of rationality would look a lot like metis , combining easily teachable mathematical rules with more implicit virtues which get absorbed by osmosis.
Overall I did like this book. Seeing Like A State was arranged kind of like the premodern forests and villages it describes; not especially well-organized, not really directed toward any clear predetermined goal, but full of interesting things and lovely to spend some time in. Tricky question. The subsidies seem to support your claim but on the other hand employers and prospective students are the ones driving the demand of degrees, and they are the ones holding any metis in this case.
So this seems more like a case where the common people and the state are on the same side, and possibly shooting themselves in the foot. How much metis is that, really? Metis and responses to incentives look similar from the outside. That seems unlikely to me. I have to think that there is some sense in which college is actually making workers more economically productive compared to workers without a college degree speaking in relative terms, it may just be that people without college are much less economically valuable today.
I have to think that there is some sense in which college is actually making workers more economically productive compared to workers without a college degree. Nah, I think it is just that the value of intelligence continues to rise as economies become more automated, so proxies for intelligence such as college also correlate better with income. There have been plenty of poor people through out time. College degrees have only been in high demand relatively recently. The U. Poor people! Those that think otherwise are likely projecting.
College degrees came to prominence as an employment requirement because degrees are being used as a proxy for IQ tests. That is not a fact. There no reason why IQ should be a better indication of ability to do job X than having done job X. And IQ testing is not widely used in countries where it is not a legal problem. Yeah, it is. The ban happened in the late 70s which is right before the college tuition started to skyrocket.
Having worked with a few hiring managers, I can tell you that the thought is going through their minds, regardless of what they put on paper. Intelligence and conscientiousness are the two single greatest traits for predicting job performance. Which is why you see years and years of experience being required even though performance for most people has hit diminishing returns after 3 years. Different cultures have different priorities. In the U. There is a legal regime whose practical implementation causes people to greatly fear lawsuits should they implement IQ testing for prospective employees but to not fear lawsuits should they implement a possibly informal requirement for college degrees.
I dashed out the first reply on my lunch. Now I have a bit more time to reply in depth. Part of the problem is that several different assertions have been blended, so I will try to separate them and address each individually. I can only speak for the U. Are intelligence tests prohibited? It is technically correct to state that intelligence tests are not strictly prohibited. Such tests are for a variety of reasons a major legal minefield for a company to walk through, so most companies are loathed to use them.
Is intelligence a good predictor of job performance? Unequivocally yes. The more complex the job, the more intelligence matters. Obviously, you will hit diminishing returns fairly quickly on intelligence if you are hiring someone to dig ditches with a shovel. This is especially true here, where low complexity jobs are undergoing rapid extinction. Is a college degree a useful proxy for intelligence? The average IQ of a college student is , which puts the typical college student at roughly 1 standard deviation above average.
From a prediction standpoint, that is essentially a tautology. The problem is with the application. The world is filled with people that are performing marginally competent work at best. So just give them a work sample you say? If it is a job they can sit down and do, and prospective employee produces output of value, you may be legally obligated to pay the person for the output. As any given model is likely to not have been extensively litigated, using a job model for employment decisions will open the employer up to litigation risk.
So proving that someone can do the job tends to be an expensive proposition. With that in mind, consider who is doing the hiring. Additionally, not everything is done in the same manner. Unless you have had an extremely unusual career or have some research to share, it is highly unlikely that you are in any position to speak authoritatively on how other countries handle hiring.
China, for example, does extensive intelligence testing. They just call it the civil service exam. Japan does all their testing upfront in the school system. In both of those cases, if you were looking for the employer to present the test you would likely miss it, as the test already happened. Where are you getting this number from? When I tried to find out the average IQ of an undergrad degree holder, it was The issue is how good it is in relation to other predictors that an HR department might want to use.
Does an IQ test give you information about conscientiousness and knowledge relevant to the role? So it is still looking like degrees are a better indicator than an IQ test alone. They are true. But a relationship of almost tautological reliability is just what you need to select a good hire. Your comment proves too much. We are in the domain of statistical evidence and probablistic reasoning here, not absolute logical necessity. We need evidence that one imperfect thing is better than another, because that is the kind of claim you are making. The pro-IQ narrative is that IQ tests are more effective than alternatives, and that US employers would use them if allowed.
James Scott criticises rational forestry,with a single specie of tree planted at regular intervals. The pro-IQ case likewise pushes a single-dimensional approach, and likewise deprecates the complexity of actual hiring practices. What for specifically? Would you believe business now needs 3x people with deep, 3-years-degree worth, insight into different forms of oppression than it needed years ago?
I personally have trouble believing it. I actually would believe that. Consider that there have been times and places where educated folk were expected to know Latin or Greek. So today there exist many people who enjoy regularly speaking another language, the language of Social Justice. A modern business needs to hire some people who speak this new language in order to do business with and avoid offending all the other people who speak this language. Having the right number of SJ native speakers on your Board, working as middle managers, working in the HR department or the PR department makes it easier to do business without getting sued or slimed by other companies and individuals.
Just like every company needs lawyers to protect against other lawyers, every company needs SJ people to protect against other SJ people. Your own SJ people are as likely if not more likely to attack your organization as they are to defend it. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of ethical code and professional exams and such.
I think this indirectly is a high modernist failing, but a failing by induction. The real impact modernism had on our education system is in universal public elementary and secondary schooling. Once modernism persuades you that universal education is mandated, I can see people making the leap to universal higher education. And after reading this, the similarities are all recognizable as high modernism. Why so much anxiety when the punishments are frequently so minor? PTSD is usually about urgent current fear.
School is an extended period of lower stress, punctuated by periods of higher stress.
I had nightmares about it, but they faded. I would say yes. That includes corporations as well as states. Right, and usually not even knowledge. Look at the entry-level positions that require a degree, but not in any specific field. Perhaps, or perhaps there are more generalisable skills that people tend to learn in college which make them more productive across a wide range of modern careers.
Most econonists tend to assume that in general better education leads to increased worker productivity in some vague way, and it seems likely to me that at least some of that is happening here. Paul: And there is. They also have a lower unemployment rate. But again, the gap between college and non-college students are actually getting larger.
They looked at people accepted by an elite school who chose to go to a non-elite one. The conclusion was that they got a lower salary in their first job than those who went to the elite school, but did as well thereafter, which suggests that employers take the elite degree as evidence of quality, but weaker evidence than is provided by actual performance.
In New Zealand now, if a farmer has a child who wants to take over the family farm, the child goes to a university and gets a degree in agriculture. It is that last sentence that is the key.
Find And Book A In Rockville, MD | Vagaro
Presumably there is a lot of academic knowledge that is useful for running a farm. It does not follow that it is a good thing for the average suburban kid to automatically get a college degree in.. I have direct experience in this myself. I received a four year degree in Accounting because I needed that piece of paper to get a job.
So it is certainly true that college can be very useful in obtaining useful knowledge. Unfortunately that is not the most common usage of a college degree today — it is instead a signal to employers that you are a conforming, tenacious, and smart member of society, able to handle more complex tasks. Any thing learned at college is a bonus but besides the point. One pretty cool collection of Le Corbusier architecture can be found at the UrbanHell subreddit. Some very interesting analyses of this in fields as diverse as military tactics, fashion design, and urban planning.
I was waiting for the punchline that our Scott has given up leftism for libertarianism as a result of this book, but alas. James Scott seems pretty leftist. Yes, it has some merit to it. But so does High Modernism, and for that matter kabbalah and astrology. But the same goes if you go looking for all the good stuff about statism, or all the bad stuff about libertarianism. James Scott is an anarchist, which is a left-wing political ideology concerned with decentralization, freedom, and personal choice. Left emphasizes liberty, equality, and brotherhood.
Right emphasizes order, tradition, and justice. Anarchism takes as a primary goal economic equality, while libertarianism sees inequality as an acceptable price to pay for freedom. Anarchism sees private property as a form of authoritarian control and part of the problem, libertarianism sees private property as a natural right and part of the solution. His book on the subject, not as good as the other two books, is Two Cheers for Anarchy. My conclusion from The Art of Not Being Governed was he thought anarchy had been viable in Southeast Asia for a long time, no longer was.
I have considered myself an anarchist for something over fifty years, as do many but a minority of other libertarians. One could equally say that anarchism takes as a primary goal economic inequality, and libertarianism sees equality as the consequence of freedom, by using the right-wing definition of equality of opportunity instead of equality of results.
There are almost as many flavors of anarchism as there are anarchists or anarchist sympathizers. The same pretty much applies to modern anarchists. Did you read the forward of the book? He actually felt a need to explicitly disavow accusations that he had become one of those filthy libertarians before the book even starts.
Ymer could be the star Sweden wants
My conclusion from debating James Scott and talking with him was that on any subject he has not thought much about he has conventional left-wing views, on subjects he has actually paid attention to he has interesting views that may well be correct and are generally not consistent with conventional center-left views. That included, I think in a footnote, saying something negative about Hayek at a point when he was agreeing with him.
People may be interested in my blog post after the debate. Someone else in this thread was also claiming that James Scott seems to mostly agree with Hayek but feels the need to disagree with and criticise Hayek to distinguish from the right. The suggestion seems to be that his disagreement is more a form of signalling than based on any actual argument.
Cross Canada Culinary Tour
Part of the book is devoted to arguing that capitalism entails a similar simplification and requires state coercion to run roughshod over local variation and complexity. But most of all his argument seemed deeply anthropological to me and James Scott is himself-at least in part-an anthropologist. Anthropologists publish paper after paper looking at how some external body often a government but also potentially an NGO or some international body try to enforce supposedly beneficial changes on a complex local situation that they do not understand.
In fact, the argument he makes is very similar to the typical anthropological critique against more reductive forms of social science — namely that they involve massive simplifications of far more complex social realities. I think he argues against Hayek because he disagrees with him and has fairly clear arguments as to why he disagrees with him. If you cite someone who has some similar arguments to yours but from whom you differ profoundly on central questions, it would be more strange to not point to the differences. My comment on what James Scott is leftist about was not based on the book but on the debate and conversation with him.
The debate is webbed. What I was complaining about was not an argument but a footnote saying something negative about Hayek irrelevant to the mention of Hayek it was a footnote to. Without meaning to be rude your memory must be failing you. There is only one occasion where he mentions Hayek in the main body of the text and then follows it up in the footnote.
On page he writes:. To the degree that authorities insist on replacing this ineffably complex web of activity with formal rules and regulations, they are certain to disrupt the web in ways that they cannot possibly foresee. This point is most frequently made by such proponents of laissez-faire as Friedrich Hayek, who are fond of pointing out that a command economy, however sophisticated and legible, cannot begin to replace the myriad, rapid, mutual adjustments of functioning markets and the price system.
Proponents of this view forget or ignore, I think, the fact that in order to do its work, the market requires its own vast simplifications in treating land nature and labor people as factors of production commodities. This, in turn, can and has been profoundly destructive of human communities and of nature. In a sense, the simplification of the scientific forest compounds the simplification of scientific measurement and the simplification made possible by the commercial market for wood.
But seeing as he makes thought-through left-wing arguments in published works of his, it seems much more reasonable to conclude that he is left-wing on the basis of the thought-through arguments that he publishes rather than the half-baked ones he mentioned in one private conversation.
Certainly possible. What I was probably remembering was a comment on p. I think it is fair to say that the language of the footnote implies hostility to Hayek in the context of observing that Hayek made the same point Scott has just made—and made it long before Scott did. Classical liberals are more right than left in the modern era though Trump may change that.
Classical liberals are pretty much the 19th century version of libertarianism. The only substantial difference I can see is that classical liberals were in favor of expanding the franchise and modern libertarians have no particular position on that subject. But libertarianism is the last High Modernist political ideology standing. Libertarianism has a rational model of how society should be ordered and any local knowledge about the practical necessity of regulation or public ownership of goods should be ignored.
Definitely pre-Modern societies like Medieval Europe were not in any way remotely libertarian. High Modernism is about central authority making rules for the whole of society. Libertarianism is about prohibiting any central authority strong enough to do that from existing. Zero is a number just as much as 1 million is. Saying no community can address a problem through public action is an incredibly intrusive law to impose on all society.
Libertarianism is about going and saying we know better than anyone who has tried to address a societal problem before and the answer is always less regulation or community structure. Most of the local solutions that are described here would not be permitted under a libertarian legal system. The traditional solutions are almost all about the local community overriding the private property rights of individuals in order to promote long term stability. Libertarianism offers to radically slash away one set of restraints set by modern society.
Socialism offers to slash away a different set of impediments. Neither socialism nor state capitalism are dead, and pretty much everything going is recognizably High Modernist.
Any voluntary community can solve any problem they like in a libertarian system. They just cannot impose that solution on people outside their community. FWIW, I abandoned extreme libertarianism in my teen years, but I think the direction from the current world is the correct one, even if some get the magnitude wrong. So can Walmart be prevented from opening up a new location in a municipality say, by majority vote by village elders or something because they think it will be harmful to the local economy?
Or is that against libertarian rules? It can be prevented from opening on any given parcel of land by the owners of that land. A town is not a voluntary community unless it has explicitly been set up to be one by a set of rules one agrees to when they move there e. This seems pretty arbitrary. Are we assuming the US government is vouchsafing ownership of property like in the current system? Or could we have a system where it is the council of elders backed by the local militia who vouchsafes ownership of private property?
I should have been more explicit about this, I suppose. A system where a single member of a community can defect from the community for a huge paycheck and as a result allows Walmart to move in and disrupt the local economy is not the sort of system I would recommend. I think this is an important difference between left and right thinking.
Membership is assigned to you, not chosen. To the right, the atom of society is the individual, or at most the small, tight-knit voluntary group like the family. Should I be allowed to start a landscaping company that provides better service than an incumbent, if it would take sales away from that incumbent? Should I be allowed to import cheaper goods from another town, if it takes away sales from local producers? Should I be allowed to invent a labor saving device that allows me to produce widgets more cheaply than incumbents, thus taking away their sales?
Should people be forced to buy more expensive and less desirable goods and services if this prevents local disruption? Competition, innovation, and individual choice are disruptive, but I see them as essential to economic progress. Perhaps to some extent, it is longing for a social context that feels right to me that motivates my leftward leaning. Perhaps there is also an element of the acknowledgement that in terms of ethology, humans are pack animals that really do have a hard time surviving as individuals or nuclear families and that therefore the atomic unit really is a cohesive society.
So in this case, I really am concerned about the rights of the individual, which I think are better served through small-scale local municipal government than by Walmart and the federal government. Most conceptions of libertarianism include contract enforcement, as well as a wide range of voluntary groups the corporation being the most obvious example, but far from the only one.
If you get deeper into the libertarian literature, you see a lot of praise for things like 19th century mutual aid societies — you could in past buy things like private legal fee insurance, for example. In practice it is, which is one of many arguments that led to me moderating my views substantially on the topic. Any individual can start their own firm, Walmart or no. Lots of local shops survive near big box stores. You seem to be wanting to give them the right to succeed at it, though, which seems implausible with or without Walmart.
One response I find compelling. TL;DR is incentives matter. I think you might have something there. If it were impossible to avoid being in any HOA because all the houses and all the land you might build a house on are already covered by one or another, then HOAs would just be another form of government. I suspect that this is actually inevitable, or would be in a purely libertarian universe with no higher level of government to restrict what HOAs can force their members to do. Absent that, if the elders can arbitrarily tell John Farmer that he is not allowed to sell his front corn field to Walmart and tell the entire dirt-poor Garcia, Brown, Johnson and Andrews clans that they may neither buy cheap goods from Walmart nor take jobs there, that is not a libertarian village.
You can tell a story where the village elders have the best interests of the community in mind and are correctly judging that allowing Walmart in would break the bonds of community, and that John Farmer is behaving evilly by wanting to defect and sell his field. Which story you choose to tell may well depend on your politics; real cases probably vary. Since you asked …. Large companies get to be as authoritarian as the market permits. I trust Google has better incentives than government to not be malicious. Ex-Google employees spilling the beans on improper use of information is likely to lead to swift changes, to avoid mass exodus from their service.
John C. Mass exodus to where exactly? If you live in a democratic country and your government does something that pisses off lots of citizens, citizens can vote for somebody else. The main incentive that Google has not to do something obviously shitty is that Google exists under a government that can beat it with a big stick if they do something obviously shitty. Yes, you can ask your boss to use another email address just for you in order to cater to your specific grievances with Google.
Sounds like a good strategy to advance your career. Google got big because they served consumers well so people started voluntarily using them instead of competitors. Their PageRank algorithm got more relevant results than any other search engine. Inconvenient, sure, but more convenient than emigration. Some things called libertarianism like local control and are opposed to central authority, yes. But I think the more usual sort of libertarianism is focused on the rights of the individual , not the village, and is opposed to any governmental authority, local authority included.
In the US we have this crazy two-level structure where the federal government is often what stop sthe local governments from doing this sort of thing! Of course, I think the proper libertarian reply here is, instead of having two levels of government where one stops the other from acting, why not get rid of both? Clearly a confusing problem due to the failure to properly apply trademark law. Since the context is conversations on this forum, I suggest that the obvious rule is to let whoever here has been describing himself as a libertarian longer own the trademark and permit others to use the term only if they license it from him.
Scott, you have read Antifragile, right? In recent months this point of view seems to be going viral. Helped enormously, no doubt, by the rise of Donald Trump. EDIT: I finally got to the end of the article. For which the best example is their approach to AI. You should. It has a lot of shortcomings… but in the end it is both captivating and profound, IMO.
Antifragile is very definitely relevant here, but really at the level of systemic risk. Seeing Like A State seems to argue that Tanzanian farmers will produce more bushels per acre of wheat using their historical methods than will lab-coated science farmers wearing Big Ag patches above their pocket protectors.
But Taleb convincingly makes the argument that thinning down the number of strains and propagating them more widely creates a significant systemic risk that, if I remember it correctly, is perhaps low probability but very high magnitude. Reading Taleb is a bit of a chore. But then he articulates a really good idea every eighth page, so I tolerate him.
Is there more to him than that? His style is basically lots of insight from him and heterodox thinkers wrapped in dramatic prose and anecdotes about how economists are terrible. You pretty much just have to find a good summary or pick through the midden for something of value. His recent Skin in the Game excerpts have been especially wretched. It is a pure ad homonym against a book that had some very well researched sections. That said, he certainly gave no actual argument, merely an unsubstantiated attack.
My complaint is basically that Taleb is still being shady no matter how dumb you find Capital. Samuel Johnson must be a contender for finest example of this line of argumentation:. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I also thought of Taleb while reading this review. On the global scale, an increase in systemic fragility and tail risk. And on the individual level, the disappearance of opportunities for the development and exercise of virtuosity and local wisdom, which may not contribute to effectiveness toward a particular prescribed goal, but seem to broadly increase human life satisfaction across domains.
As Scott A. Taleb would see this as a failure of epistemic humility. The way metis is used here seems compatible with the type of local knowledge that contributes to markets and systems like futarchy, but on a smaller, more transparent scale. One of the hallmarks of high modernism, as far as I call tell, was ludicrous overconfidence on the part of purported experts about the extent of their knowledge and the difficulty of the problems they faced on the other hand, the green revolution happened, so clearly someone somewhere figured something out.
That , I think, is a product of ideology, rather than an inevitable result of technocratic approaches to governance. Yeah, Hayek was my first thought reading this review as well. This is straight out of The Use of Knowledge in Society. As for the Green Revolution, they attacked the biology side of the problem, not the economic or agricultural side.
Create higher-yielding strains of crops, better fertilizers, and the like, and they can be added into any agricultural process without displacing many or sometimes any of the useful bits of tradition. I might have to push it up on the pile. Great article. I needed college classes, because I needed a formal environment to learn this stuff. And the fact that college also guides you to non-major education is the main reason I managed to get into it.
Hairdresser licenses are unfortunately a thing in the Czech Rep as well. Even if they do use bleach, the worst thing that can happen is that your hair gets ruined and your scalp irritated for a few days. Such hairdressers then quickly lose their customers. Also, the hairdresser I visit has a lot of various certificates on the wall in her salon, some of which are not at all mandatory.
I think there still are, and always will be, such people. Are you possibly thinking of Houston? Dallas has zoning, a pretty well defined downtown and decent surface street connections. On the subject, are there any other? Houston is not that bad. Another thing to note is that while Houston does not have Euclidean use-based zoning, it still has minimum parking requirements, minimum setbacks, and in many cases minimum lot sizes. Its downtown also underwent some of the worst mid-century urban renewal resulting in a massive parking crater, and the Texas DOT seems to have some kind of freeway fetish that the state government is happy to fund without limit.
Basically, Houston has all the urban land market distortions that promote formless car-oriented sprawl, with none of the haphazard restrictions people have put in place elsewhere to limit it. The upside is that those restrictions tend to catch all other development as collateral damage, so Houston has avoided the housing market inflation seen in other growing metro areas. The downside is that the development being incentivized is still mostly terrible. For instance, African hair-braiding. It worked for the hard sciences, it just barely worked for medicine, but as soon as human minds get involved everything becomes an insanely tangled web of millions of interacting variables and the best we can hope far is widespread, repeated experimentation to guide some sort of evolutionary process.
So scientific experiments were invaluable for guiding the evolution of Western farming techniques, but declaring it to be THE SOLUTION and throwing it wholesale at a different culture, climate, ecosystem and set of crops was pretty much guaranteed to fail. It calls for some sort of epistemic humility about the complexity of human systems that demands a very low prior belief in the value of any new policy, because the vast majority of changes are bad and even the good ones end up being implemented badly.
Which is pretty much to opposite view of High Modernism, which holds that THE SOLUTION to building a perfect society is already pretty much nailed down and we just need to get the idiot peasants out of the way so we can implement it already. The rationalist and EA communities at least talk about epistemic humility, so that seems like a good start.
The call has been answered and summed up here. This extensively critiques Agriculture By Outside Science, but the first thing it makes me think of is the Green Revolution, and the impression I have of the GR was that it was 1. Around ish, we started to adapt to local conditions and this is the green revolution. Some examples: Western plowing techniques and artificial fertiliser are fantastically suited to temperate to cold-ish climates where rainfall is spread more or less evenly through the year, but causes horrible soil erosion and degrading of soil quality in warm climates with seasonal rain.
First try went rather badly and possibly caused some of the later famines. Second try where technology were developed to fit local conditions went rather well. Same with pesticides; works nice to get rid of pests in England, not so well when what you do is removing competition so that you are essentially breeding locusts.
Even telephone lines; when I did the engineers without bordes thing, we were told of an aid project in the s that set up telephone poles to get communication to some villages. They were operational for less than a month when the elephant migration passed and the bulls picked up every single pole. Telephone lines are now underground where elephants pass. Besides what Fossegrimen says: 1. Synthetic fertilizers are widely used, and they are derived from fossil fuels. In some sense, human food calories are derived from fossil fuel energy.
This makes industrial agriculture unsustainable, and entangled agriculture with energy issues. The most common fertilizer chemical is ammonium nitrate, made from nitric acid which comes from air at very high temperatures plus water plus ammonia made from atmospheric nitrogen plus hydrogen, the latter of which is currently sourced from hydrocarbons but could easily be created by hydrolysis if non-fossil-fuel energy ever got cheap enough to compete. For the record, I am deeply skeptical that fossil fuel use can ever be substantially replaced by anything else, including nuclear. To me, the human population graph looks like the first half of the population curve for any animal that suddenly finds a new source of chemical energy for most animals, that just means food : the exponential growth before the inevitable population crash.
I think the best we can do is to try to make the crash less horrific. I tend to generally be optimistic, because human societies contain enough smart people that we can generally find alternatives to shortages. Energy will likely get more expensive, but sufficient economic growth will make that survivable. So far, every large-scale human society except the current one has ultimately succumbed to a shortage of something-or-other. Sometimes after a few decades, sometimes after a few centuries, but so far it has happened every time. My view of human society is largely driven by thermodynamics, so I have a rather different view.
Economic growth and growth in energy use are almost the same thing a small fraction of economic growth comes from greater efficiency, but efficiency curves are always subject to diminishing returns. The idea that the economy could grow and energy could become more expensive at the same time is, from my understanding, a contradiction in terms. Notice how every time the price of energy spikes, there is a recession. I do wonder how much of the current cost of nuclear is on the regulatory side. Is it even plausible to think that we could build relatively cheap but very safe nuclear plants?
But you have to take into account the whole-systems view: 1. Energy is required to mine nuclear fuel. So far, all the equipment is tooled to use diesel fuel, not electricity. So a huge hurdle is electrifying mining equipment, or taking the efficiency hit of using good nuclear-produced electricity to produce diesel fuel to enable mining. A few hundred years at most at our current rate of energy consumption which might be note enough, see point 1. For Uranium fission at least, the waste problem has not been solved.
Spent fuel ponds could easily cause a huge ecological crisis if there is a big enough catastrophe to disrupt their cooling systems. It seems like virtually all past societies have succumbed to a shortage of military force, or occasionally a shortage of humans the Columbian plague wiping out the Americas or royal heirs various smaller states being subsumed into larger ones, Burgundy being the first that comes to mind.
Societies or states falling due to economic shortages are incredibly rare — the Mayans, and arguably the Soviets, are the only ones that come to mind. I do agree that expensive energy will make us worse off, and substantially so. As for nuclear, diesel fuel for uranium mining equipment is not a real problem.
We will never literally be out of oil, it will just stop being economical for automotive and electrical use. Specialist use aviation, chemical plants, certain specialized equipment like mining gear is a trivial percentage of the global usage and we could sustain that for millennia. And safety concerns for nuclear are grossly overblown — it is literally safer than solar or wind. There are plenty of solutions. Nuclear recycling to reduce the quantity, dropping it in ocean subduction zones encased in concrete, packaging it so as not to need water cooling then simply warehousing it.
While true, that says absolutely nothing about quality or necessity of the current regulatory regime. It seems like virtually all past societies have succumbed to a shortage of military force, or occasionally a shortage of humans…or royal heirs. Distinction without a difference in my view. What prevented Rome from raising bigger armies? Probably the economic devastation resulting from eating all its seed corn on the peninsula and relying on tribute for hundreds of years. Why is there ever a shortage of humans? Always, always because of a food shortage 20 years earlier.
Royal heirs? Again, my view of human societies is through the lens of thermodynamics. All these parameters are related to flows of energy through society. Since humans ultimately rely on energy to live, it always comes back to food. This is, in part, due to the regulations that make it so expensive. It could be cheaper, but then it would likely be less safe. Also, the biggest risks of nuclear are catastrophic modes of failure that we have fortunately not encountered much of so far. The question is whether we can continue to avoid such catastrophes if energy becomes more expensive and we start gutting regulations and cutting corners everywhere throughout the economy.
If you were trying to understand instead of poking holes you might have realized this yourself. You seem to be looking for things to argue about. Could you please either keep your responses pertinent to my comments or find someone else to argue with? Usually because of plagues, actually. Look at the invasion of the Americas — the natives resisted the Europeans quite well, until they were wiped out by the Eurasian disease pool.
That one normally leads to the end of a state, not a society. But many of the claimants are large nearby realms who simply incorporate the state in question, leading to the end of the state. You can quintuple the death rate from nuclear and still not be any worse than solar. The PR of this plan would be just a bit problematic, to be fair. A few hundred years to work out much more efficient solar panels, how to get uranium out of seawater, to work out thorium reactors, to finally get to fusion, whatever you want, is a huge amount of time. I did not claim the problem was already solved, I said there are solutions.
Your choice. Bread is a kind of food, and a welfare scheme involving giving out bread seems relevant to the question of whether foot shortages factored into the fall of Rome. Plagues are often caused or exacerbated by immune distress caused by food shortages. There must be some other more complicated rule. I propose that this rule has to do with the flow of energy through society.
You were the one who cited lack of heirs as a potential cause for social collapse. I rebutted to say that lack of heirs is only a problem when societies are already collapsing. Your response does not seem relevant to my rebuttal to me. If you were engaging in good faith instead of trying to poke holes, you might have acknowledged that. Maybe trying will be a useful exercise for you, though.
Often, not always. I specifically meant that mostly as a reference to the Americas, where food shortages played effectively no role. If it hits everyone equally as the Black Death did , then the end of the ugly tail of the diminishing returns curve helps the economy out. If it only affects you, and not your enemies as the Columbian plague did , you generally get conquered in fairly short order. Please point to where I said anything was inevitable. I said it buys time. This seems to have been rewritten since I logged in and a bunch of what I wanted to respond to seems to have been removed.
But yeah, I think a big part of how to not fall into this trap is that combination of empiricism i. Basically, having a system that allows problems, even totally unanticipated problems, to be corrected or actually causes them to be corrected in a subsequent iteration. Closing the control loop, so to speak. Note importantly that tradition can break free of this just as much as attempts to work things out from first principles!
Without negative feedback, tradition can get stupid fast. Basically I think the tradition vs reason distinction may be less important than the open-loop vs closed-loop distinction. I occasionally hear New Math cited as a relatively recent centrally planned grand catastrophe.
People criticize it as if the core idea were obviously wrong, but to me the idiocy was rolling out an experiment nationally all at once. Opening a few New Math schools would have been reasonably. Less Wrong warns against the perils of overoptimized search , giving what seems like a similar moral. The sort of empiricism I would guess one ought to employ is gradual testing on larger and more diverse scales, trading away cheapness and speed for large sample sizes as one becomes more and more certain.
To create a great crop for Tanzania, one would first try to breed a strain that grows well on the experimental farm, then a strain that grows well on ten experimental farms scattered throughout the country, then a strain that grows well and preserves important soil quality indicators in a variety of climates, then a strain that gets good user farmer feedback across a couple villages which are willing to try it out, etc.
This, I think, is the real moral: check your work often. Reason is your guide, but reality is your judge. The ultimate test of intuitive understanding was said to be the game of Go, but it succumbed to a list of rules. Granted, the list was terabytes long and required a giant GPU cluster to evaluate, but it was still a list of rules.
Test it at a small enough scale and then make it better. If you replace these two steps with buzzwords and fancy suits, of course the result will be disaster. Regarding Alpha Go — I would argue that the way it works is more like intuition than a list of rules. In the sense that human intuition is a calculation your brain does based on a vast number on inputs related in a multitude of complex ways which are if not impossible then very difficult to write down explicitly.
Similarly, Alpha Go works by taking in the state of the board, and using its neural network trained on data from real games by professional players and by playing the game against itself, spits out what it thinks is the best move. However neither the system itself nor any of the programmers could provide any real rule-like explanation for why it chose that particular move. One school believed that good chess programs would be created by consulting with experts to come up with an extensive list of rules and principles, and applying those.
The other just wanted to throw computing power at the problem. Instead of spending a lot of processing power prioritizing moves, you could just look at every move, and every response to those moves, and every response to those, and so on, until you ran out of time. This forces you to have a very cheap evaluation function How many pieces does player have? Are they on good squares?
As you may be able to tell from the length of my descriptions, the second approach won decisively. AlphaGo incorporates a number of more recent techniques — neural networks trained on large corpuses of data, reinforcement learning, weighted random sampling of the search tree Monte Carlo tree search — but is fundamentally no more based on a list of rules than, say, Deep Blue.
They do in aviation one as well. And, as far as I know, the process for writing them was never the FAA working out a grand scheme of perfect checklists. Rather, every time a plane crashes, they figure out who did what wrong then add that to the list. Checklists have barely been tried in medicine. Airplanes have a giant book of short checklists. When something goes wrong, you look up the appropriate short checklist. Of course, in a crisis a giant checklist would be ridiculous.
Instead, it was a collaborative project to develop the checklist, and one of the hard things about designing a checklist that worked was keeping it short enough to be usable by people who were also doing an operation. I took a different message about the connection between Yudkowsky rationalists and LeCorbusier rationalists.
Although I do suspect that provably safe systems like he is working on right now will be a disappointment, because anything provable will be insufficiently complex, and anything good will be insufficiently provable. In making the connection between the Yudkowsky rationalists and the LeCorbusier rationalists it sure feels like our Scott is slowly stumbling towards a, forgive me, Dark Rationalism ….
Yields per hour of work might be a better measure than yields per acre. But how path-dependent was the process that yielded the result? Were smallholders not competitive for purely economic reasons, or other factors like government policies and demographics make a difference?