Are you an animal? Probably you would not like the association with an inferior living creature. Humans are the proud bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens, in the family of Hominidae (great apes). Yet, a mere 2% of our genome differs from that of a chimp (if we consider non-coding DNA) but this is an approximate figure and more accurate estimates are being made along with the advancement in genomic research. In the end, it will probably turn out that an even smaller portion of our DNA sequence is to be held responsible for our superior abilities. You would be surprised to find out that, although greater, there is not much more difference between your DNA and the DNA of a rat.
What about rights? Human right vs. animal rights? We feed animals for the purpose of eating them. We use them in laborious physical activities; we use them for fun or as companions. We starve them, we hunt them, we scare them, we separate couples, we isolate them; we use them for the most horrifying experiments with all the imaginable chemical compounds; we seldom pay any tribute to their memories.
Should we worry about this attitude? Or it is a well earn right of ours? The prize of winning the evolutionary race? Do they have any rights at all? If so, which? And how should they be attributed? Non-discriminatory or based on the complexity of their DNA?
Again, should we even worry about this? My answer is YES. And this concern should go well beyond some moral issues. Why? Because we are animals ourselves. So far, we are the top of the evolutionary chain. It is, however, within our grasp to speed up dramatically the rate of the evolution, that is, the rate of beneficial mutations to our DNA. In the next decades, despite some moral debates, there will be newborns with improved DNA. Superior humans. How superior? One can hardly imagine. Far stronger, faster and healthier. Even more, potentially far more intelligent. This means they will potentially be incredible more sophisticated species. Another specie? Maybe.
In fact, there is a possibility that entire populations featuring different superior abilities will show up. Will they fight one another? Or will they grant each other rights and coexist peacefully? How about the old fashion Homo sapiens (that is, you and me)? How will they be treated? Will they be considered perfect subjects for controversial experiments or potential organs donors?
Maybe it’s just about time to sit down and seriously think about the charter of animal rights. Not necessarily for their sake, but for our own sake.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Space...the final frontier?
I have referred before the important role of corporations. I have shown that corporations enjoy a multitude of rights and they are important counterparts of the private citizen. In fact, capitalism is built around these corporate citizens. I have pointed out that while there might be negative externalities spilling from the core activities of the corporate world on the remaining of the society, corporations have their important role for the overall progress and wellbeing of the humankind. I have argued that while there might be reasons to provide incentives for corporations to become more socially and environmentally responsible, this has to be done within their natural framework, which is profit maximizing.
I have also said that I believe that an even clearer line has to be drawn between the corporate citizen and the private citizen. This is due to the fact that, even if today they enjoy pretty similar legal regulation, these two citizens are driven by different behavioral motives and objectives. Corporations are less susceptible, if at all, to posses the kind of moral restrains that humans supposedly posses. In fact, it is not natural for them to be restrained by such reasons. Corporations should strive to succeed, even if this means wiping out their fellows. This Machiavellian, or I should say Schumpeterian behavior is desirable, and the ultimate result is an increased overall welfare, progress and efficient allocation of resources.
However, I can see a potential problem with this separation between the corporate world and the remaining of the society. Every time there will be an objective that falls outside the profit maximizing framework, society will fail to account for it. I guess pollution reduction falls in this category. It is fortunate that we still have the means to impose socially desirable objectives to the corporate world, although it is not an easy thing to do. But there are objectives that are very difficult to be brought within the desirable spectrum for the large audience. And it could happen that these objectives might be extremely beneficial for the humankind because they would create an unexpected range of opportunities, even for the profit-seeking citizens. One obvious example is interplanetary exploration. It is very difficult to see direct and profitable benefits from such an activity, at this point, but the gold mine could be there anyhow. And because developed world is built around the needs of the corporate citizen (capitalism), there was no real push in this direction outside the national pride of a few countries. I guess the time will come when we will experience an explosion of efforts towards extraterrestrial activities. But that will happen only when the corporate world will identify material benefits. This practically means that our path and rate of development are entirely determined by the spillovers of the corporate world. Could this be a frontier in itself? I’d say it could, and it seems to be yet bounded within the space frontier.
I have also said that I believe that an even clearer line has to be drawn between the corporate citizen and the private citizen. This is due to the fact that, even if today they enjoy pretty similar legal regulation, these two citizens are driven by different behavioral motives and objectives. Corporations are less susceptible, if at all, to posses the kind of moral restrains that humans supposedly posses. In fact, it is not natural for them to be restrained by such reasons. Corporations should strive to succeed, even if this means wiping out their fellows. This Machiavellian, or I should say Schumpeterian behavior is desirable, and the ultimate result is an increased overall welfare, progress and efficient allocation of resources.
However, I can see a potential problem with this separation between the corporate world and the remaining of the society. Every time there will be an objective that falls outside the profit maximizing framework, society will fail to account for it. I guess pollution reduction falls in this category. It is fortunate that we still have the means to impose socially desirable objectives to the corporate world, although it is not an easy thing to do. But there are objectives that are very difficult to be brought within the desirable spectrum for the large audience. And it could happen that these objectives might be extremely beneficial for the humankind because they would create an unexpected range of opportunities, even for the profit-seeking citizens. One obvious example is interplanetary exploration. It is very difficult to see direct and profitable benefits from such an activity, at this point, but the gold mine could be there anyhow. And because developed world is built around the needs of the corporate citizen (capitalism), there was no real push in this direction outside the national pride of a few countries. I guess the time will come when we will experience an explosion of efforts towards extraterrestrial activities. But that will happen only when the corporate world will identify material benefits. This practically means that our path and rate of development are entirely determined by the spillovers of the corporate world. Could this be a frontier in itself? I’d say it could, and it seems to be yet bounded within the space frontier.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The moral dilemma of Bill Gates
I have referred before the concept of homo oeconomicus. We need this concept because it makes the research of economic phenomena so much easier. It abstracts from any other characteristics of a complex human being, and focuses on that behavior that is driven only by economic reasons. To some extent, this is a satisfactory approximation of our daily decision making. Moreover, with properly constructed utility functions, many purely altruistic decisions can be described in economic terms (e.g. gifts for an increase of self esteem). There are boundaries to the concept, but as long as we are aware of these boundaries, we can use it in a productive way, at least in the academic world, and derive useful implications for our daily life.
One other aspect I would like emphasize is the status of the firm. Firms are entities that enjoy more or less the same social status as individuals, at least from a legal perspective. There are differences, but mostly in favor of firms. Corporations cannot be elected to held public or political functions. But they can delegate individuals who can lobby on their behalf. All property rights are the same as for private individuals. Moreover, they can mobilize impressive resources for pursuing their goals and a private person might want to consider seriously whether to embark legal battles with corporations.
Given all these, it is clear that corporations are engaged in decisions that are likely to alter the well-being of individuals, and the social welfare. But is this the way it should be? Clearly, the Anglo-Saxon liberalism and the western economies seem to accept this as a natural law of the free market economy.
I would argue that all the regulation directed to private individuals implicitly considers a sort of moral censorship of one’s actions. This is certainly not the case for companies. Companies cannot be held accountable for actions that are “immoral”. Not form a legal point of view. Sure, there is public opprobrium, but this is important as long as it interferes with the profits the company makes.
The conclusion is that maybe we need to draw a clearer line between these two important actors of the social scene: the corporation and the individual or, if you like, the household.
Bill Gates is an important contributor to the philanthropy industry. He devoted vast amounts of his own wealth to this purpose. Lately, he dragged Warren Buffet into this. These guys made their fortune by allowing their companies to play by the fiercest rules of the corporation world. They most certainly succeeded wonderfully. But Microsoft is facing serious charges for its anti-competition and monopoly practices. Most certainly, society as a whole would benefit a lot from cheaper and readily available software. But Bill Gates, probably the philanthropist number one in the world, does not seem to care about this. As a researcher in the field of corporate social responsibility, I was thinking: My God, this guy fails to see that he would reap tremendous social empathy for Microsoft if he would do its charity on behalf of the company, instead of its own. Sure, he is not sole stakeholder, but I don’t think the others would mind. Microsoft was severely fined by the competition authorities of the EU, and people approved that. I think the situation would have been different if Microsoft would have identified itself as a philanthropic and altruistic entity, instead of a ruthless profit seeking corporation.
A superficial conclusion would be that Bill Gates is an egoistic maniac that wants to keep for him all the spillovers of the philanthropic activity. Well, I guess both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are to smart not to see the opportunity I mentioned above. Instead, I think they perfectly realized that corporate world is distinct from the social world of private individuals, and the clearer the demarcation line, the better. So let Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway be the ultimate corporate warriors without bugging them with moral issues that do not belong to their world, and increase social welfare through the means of the decent human empathy, that is so dear to us, private individuals.
One other aspect I would like emphasize is the status of the firm. Firms are entities that enjoy more or less the same social status as individuals, at least from a legal perspective. There are differences, but mostly in favor of firms. Corporations cannot be elected to held public or political functions. But they can delegate individuals who can lobby on their behalf. All property rights are the same as for private individuals. Moreover, they can mobilize impressive resources for pursuing their goals and a private person might want to consider seriously whether to embark legal battles with corporations.
Given all these, it is clear that corporations are engaged in decisions that are likely to alter the well-being of individuals, and the social welfare. But is this the way it should be? Clearly, the Anglo-Saxon liberalism and the western economies seem to accept this as a natural law of the free market economy.
I would argue that all the regulation directed to private individuals implicitly considers a sort of moral censorship of one’s actions. This is certainly not the case for companies. Companies cannot be held accountable for actions that are “immoral”. Not form a legal point of view. Sure, there is public opprobrium, but this is important as long as it interferes with the profits the company makes.
The conclusion is that maybe we need to draw a clearer line between these two important actors of the social scene: the corporation and the individual or, if you like, the household.
Bill Gates is an important contributor to the philanthropy industry. He devoted vast amounts of his own wealth to this purpose. Lately, he dragged Warren Buffet into this. These guys made their fortune by allowing their companies to play by the fiercest rules of the corporation world. They most certainly succeeded wonderfully. But Microsoft is facing serious charges for its anti-competition and monopoly practices. Most certainly, society as a whole would benefit a lot from cheaper and readily available software. But Bill Gates, probably the philanthropist number one in the world, does not seem to care about this. As a researcher in the field of corporate social responsibility, I was thinking: My God, this guy fails to see that he would reap tremendous social empathy for Microsoft if he would do its charity on behalf of the company, instead of its own. Sure, he is not sole stakeholder, but I don’t think the others would mind. Microsoft was severely fined by the competition authorities of the EU, and people approved that. I think the situation would have been different if Microsoft would have identified itself as a philanthropic and altruistic entity, instead of a ruthless profit seeking corporation.
A superficial conclusion would be that Bill Gates is an egoistic maniac that wants to keep for him all the spillovers of the philanthropic activity. Well, I guess both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are to smart not to see the opportunity I mentioned above. Instead, I think they perfectly realized that corporate world is distinct from the social world of private individuals, and the clearer the demarcation line, the better. So let Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway be the ultimate corporate warriors without bugging them with moral issues that do not belong to their world, and increase social welfare through the means of the decent human empathy, that is so dear to us, private individuals.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
It’s not the system but the leadership
It has been said that the communist system was a complete failure, both socially and economically. In my line of research we very often target the corporations for illegitimate or socially damaging practices. Along time many institutions or social systems have been blamed for their inability to treat individuals in a fair manner, even if this was for a greater goal. Feudalism, imperialism, mysticism, agnosticism, the church, the government, the judicial system, the army, almost everything imaginable, at some point in time was stigmatized.
But the truth is that if one takes a broader perspective, none of these were ultimately bad or ultimately good. Certainly, every social system or institution can be described by a various degree of success in pursuing individual or society welfare. Some are more successful some are more prone to failure. But the problem arises when a particular individual confiscates and misappropriates the system for its own individual, egoistic needs.
Every time in history we notice the same pattern. This is true regardless of the particular age or the particular institution or the particular purpose of that institution. In other words, whenever an individual was able to raise himself as a leading driving force for the ultimate purpose of a particular social system, a disaster was inevitable.
Perhaps this is the real strength of democracy. Not the fact that people’s voices can be heard or that the majority imposes its rule. But the fact the decision makers continuously change. Passing leaders know this and adjust their decisions accordingly. The ultimate power and the purpose of the system cannot be confiscated for the interest of a particular individual. Of course, along time, there were deviations from this rule, but the spirit of democracy does not allow deviations to become rule.
Whenever an individual is able to raise himself as the ultimate decision maker, he will ultimately deviates the purpose of that particular system or institution towards his own egoistic needs, no matter how nicely packed they are, and this will in turn be catastrophic for the others.
I am afraid this is true even for the most illuminated or revolutionary minds. When they become sole decision makers, disaster is inevitable. It’s the human nature.
Hence, it’s not the system but the leadership.
But the truth is that if one takes a broader perspective, none of these were ultimately bad or ultimately good. Certainly, every social system or institution can be described by a various degree of success in pursuing individual or society welfare. Some are more successful some are more prone to failure. But the problem arises when a particular individual confiscates and misappropriates the system for its own individual, egoistic needs.
Every time in history we notice the same pattern. This is true regardless of the particular age or the particular institution or the particular purpose of that institution. In other words, whenever an individual was able to raise himself as a leading driving force for the ultimate purpose of a particular social system, a disaster was inevitable.
Perhaps this is the real strength of democracy. Not the fact that people’s voices can be heard or that the majority imposes its rule. But the fact the decision makers continuously change. Passing leaders know this and adjust their decisions accordingly. The ultimate power and the purpose of the system cannot be confiscated for the interest of a particular individual. Of course, along time, there were deviations from this rule, but the spirit of democracy does not allow deviations to become rule.
Whenever an individual is able to raise himself as the ultimate decision maker, he will ultimately deviates the purpose of that particular system or institution towards his own egoistic needs, no matter how nicely packed they are, and this will in turn be catastrophic for the others.
I am afraid this is true even for the most illuminated or revolutionary minds. When they become sole decision makers, disaster is inevitable. It’s the human nature.
Hence, it’s not the system but the leadership.
Who doesn’t need pollution?
There is a saying: every bad thing has a brighter side. Pollution is one of the greatest challenges that humankind yet faced. We most likely have not even experienced the heights of its devastating effects for the planet and for us. The brighter side is that for the first time nations have to sit together at the same table and act honestly in the pursuing of a common goal. For the first time developed countries look at the less developed countries as equal partners. For the first time citizens and nations stand up for a cause that crosses borders, cultures or religions. My hope is that this solidarity will last and will lead to a new age for the humankind, an age were globalization will mean more benefits than shortcomings.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Who needs pollution?
Seldom has an individual been able to create more that a complex corporatist organization could. Firms are vital for creating synergies that boost innovation and progress. In the process of innovation and production companies focus on the consumer. Consumer’s tastes and preferences are the main driving or shaping force for the firms’ innovating efforts.
In the process of innovation and production, however, companies generate negative externalities. Pollution of the natural environment is a major concern today. Firms do not intrinsically seek to pollute. They do not directly benefit from it. Pollution is a side effect in the race to better fulfill consumers’ needs.But when the firms will see the natural environment as one potential customer, an important one, the negative externalities will be alleviated through the simple mechanism of competition.
In the process of innovation and production, however, companies generate negative externalities. Pollution of the natural environment is a major concern today. Firms do not intrinsically seek to pollute. They do not directly benefit from it. Pollution is a side effect in the race to better fulfill consumers’ needs.But when the firms will see the natural environment as one potential customer, an important one, the negative externalities will be alleviated through the simple mechanism of competition.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Who the f… is Russia?
If you ask people under 20 or even 25 what USSR stands for, the likely answer that you will get is that it is the acronym of a space ship. Almost two decades have passed since the political giant has collapsed, but the western nations did not seem to be very interested where the newly formed entity is heading. Truth is, aside from sizing some economic opportunities and fetching some cheap resources (which are not cheap anymore) they were not at all concerned with what is happening inside the former communist countries. But Russia has evolved. They had glasnost and perestroika. They had street revolutions. They had “oligharchs” and they had rampant mafia. All these were gone, but they were not meaningless. Winston Churchill once said about history “The further backwards you look the further forward you see”. In may seem naive, but if you magnify the scale of the recent events, is like looking back into the history of Russia, back to about the tsarist period. And the name itself, Russia, fits well. Where is the tzar, then? What is his meaning and what does he want for his own country? What about its neighbors? I am sure Mr. Putin has some answers to these, as well as to the surge of nationalism inside the new Russia. And I must say, Russia was not a country to be ignored, back in the tsarist days.
Monday, August 20, 2007
If I were a bacteria...
If I were a bacteria or a virus of the several hundreds of species that lurk inside the human body, I wonder what I would be thinking about my life and about my living environment. Now, most bacteria are primitive forms of life, they a merely a bunch of proteins centered around a DNA or a RNA sequence. They don’t have nervous systems nor do they have any kind of neuronal network. Hence, if they think, they must have a very primitive form of inferring about their life and their habitat. However, they resemble us in the way they struggle to survive and perpetuate their genetic heritage.
The human body is home to many kinds of bacteria. Most of these bacteria use resources from our own, but they provide back useful services. It is a fortunate symbiosis. Every once in a while, they seem to become too greedy, they multiply too much, they produce too much toxins or they consume too many resources. They become pathogens. Promptly, we wipe out some of them, with proper medication. Sometimes, we wipe out entire populations of bacteria. I am not sure whether bacteria know why this is happening to them. Maybe they tend to think it’s just an angry bacteria God, whom they let down. Or perhaps, they are aware of the negative impact they have on their habitat. Hence, most of the times, they behave nice towards their environment.
Now, if we are to zoom out the picture we can see a striking resemblance between the human specie and its natural host, Mother Earth. Of course, there are differences, but it is useful to underline the similarities.
Many will probably raise their eyebrow when faced with the hypothesis that Earth itself might have some sort of a conscience. But I ask: Why not? After all, what are we, humans? Just a bunch of particles held together into, its true, a very complex system. Have we been around for long, long enough to believe that we are one of the most advanced systems ever? Earth has been estimated to be around 4,6 billion years old. First organic life has shown up around 1 billion years ago. We, apes, have been around for approximately 2 million years. Now, if we think that we are intelligent entities, why on Earth, Earth itself will not posses some kind of intelligence? If you ask me, I’d say that its IQ could be “slightly” higher than ours. In a 4,6 billion to 2 million ratio. Or, to have the whole picture, planet Earth belongs to a species whose origins are far back in time, in the dawn of the Universe. This species had a lot of time to evolve.
Some might say that if this is true, then the non-stop circling around a star does not seem a very smart behavior from a supposedly very intelligent entity. Moreover, its inner systems seem far less complex than our beautiful human bodies. Well, I guess we can comprehend the behavior of our host, the same way bacteria understand why they are flushed with strange chemicals or, to put it simpler, why their host wakes up every morning at seven and goes to an office at nine. They probably don’t know anything about offices either. As far as complexity goes, even the comprehensible part of our planet, with is extremely fine tuned eco-systems, seems to me complicated enough to go well beyond our most advanced knowledge. Not to mention that we can only perceive a tiny part of the whole picture, the same way that bacteria perceive our bodies. And we don’t know anything about the planet’s “offices”. But if you ask me, I’d say that our planet, Earth, is quite young; he is child and he is in the elementary school now. The Sun is the young planets’ teacher. Solar radiation is a form of knowledge and when they will be educated enough, the young brats can start a serious office job. After, of course, they get “wasted” into cosmic dust, in their well deserved holyday.
This scenario is product of my fantasy, of course, but it is one possible scenario, born out of the limited knowledge I possess.
I would, however, be very careful with the amount of waste I produce. I just don’t want to produce a stomach ache to our generous, so far, host.
The human body is home to many kinds of bacteria. Most of these bacteria use resources from our own, but they provide back useful services. It is a fortunate symbiosis. Every once in a while, they seem to become too greedy, they multiply too much, they produce too much toxins or they consume too many resources. They become pathogens. Promptly, we wipe out some of them, with proper medication. Sometimes, we wipe out entire populations of bacteria. I am not sure whether bacteria know why this is happening to them. Maybe they tend to think it’s just an angry bacteria God, whom they let down. Or perhaps, they are aware of the negative impact they have on their habitat. Hence, most of the times, they behave nice towards their environment.
Now, if we are to zoom out the picture we can see a striking resemblance between the human specie and its natural host, Mother Earth. Of course, there are differences, but it is useful to underline the similarities.
Many will probably raise their eyebrow when faced with the hypothesis that Earth itself might have some sort of a conscience. But I ask: Why not? After all, what are we, humans? Just a bunch of particles held together into, its true, a very complex system. Have we been around for long, long enough to believe that we are one of the most advanced systems ever? Earth has been estimated to be around 4,6 billion years old. First organic life has shown up around 1 billion years ago. We, apes, have been around for approximately 2 million years. Now, if we think that we are intelligent entities, why on Earth, Earth itself will not posses some kind of intelligence? If you ask me, I’d say that its IQ could be “slightly” higher than ours. In a 4,6 billion to 2 million ratio. Or, to have the whole picture, planet Earth belongs to a species whose origins are far back in time, in the dawn of the Universe. This species had a lot of time to evolve.
Some might say that if this is true, then the non-stop circling around a star does not seem a very smart behavior from a supposedly very intelligent entity. Moreover, its inner systems seem far less complex than our beautiful human bodies. Well, I guess we can comprehend the behavior of our host, the same way bacteria understand why they are flushed with strange chemicals or, to put it simpler, why their host wakes up every morning at seven and goes to an office at nine. They probably don’t know anything about offices either. As far as complexity goes, even the comprehensible part of our planet, with is extremely fine tuned eco-systems, seems to me complicated enough to go well beyond our most advanced knowledge. Not to mention that we can only perceive a tiny part of the whole picture, the same way that bacteria perceive our bodies. And we don’t know anything about the planet’s “offices”. But if you ask me, I’d say that our planet, Earth, is quite young; he is child and he is in the elementary school now. The Sun is the young planets’ teacher. Solar radiation is a form of knowledge and when they will be educated enough, the young brats can start a serious office job. After, of course, they get “wasted” into cosmic dust, in their well deserved holyday.
This scenario is product of my fantasy, of course, but it is one possible scenario, born out of the limited knowledge I possess.
I would, however, be very careful with the amount of waste I produce. I just don’t want to produce a stomach ache to our generous, so far, host.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
You are what you eat
The fortunate few (compared to the global population) that we enjoy an abundance of food we might discover that we have not been so lucky in the long run. All those fancy packed delicacies that we find on the supermarket shelves come with a wide range of chemical substances, that not so long ago were not even to be found freely in the nature. It is obvious that technology has evolved much faster that it took our metabolism to adapt to the new chemical challenges.
Most of these substances were supervised by specialized agencies and are supposed to be safe for consumption. However, I tend to believe that it is very difficult to properly asses the kind of imbalances that certain supposedly safe substances produce in the human body, especially in the long run. Moreover, intensive farming lead to the development of new and more lethal diseases on animals; these can fairly easy be passed to the humans, through consumption of contaminated meat.
All these shortcomings are in place because of the huge increase in food demand, and it will be impossible at this stage to feed an entire city without the aid of the adequate preservatives, anti-oxidants or sweeteners added to food. People started eating many substances discovered in the last decades. The body is bombed with these chemicals, and the long run effects are difficult to be predicted even by the most elaborate studies. Probably some of us will adapt and survive fairly well with the “new food”, while there will be a lot of casualties as well. It is part of the evolution process.
Now, related to evolution here is another issue. I think humankind should stop feeding with other living creatures. Not immediately, probably, but when this will be accomplished, we will probably move a step further on the evolution’s ladder. While there already are people that avoid eating food derived from animals, I do not suggest that we should all become vegetarians. Proteins are important building blocks of our bodies, and are vital for their proper functioning. The other alternative that I see and I think it lays within our grasp with the actual technologies even, is to try to grow animal-like tissue in an industrial manner. These will be the stakes of the future. Benefits of this kind of food are obvious: we will avoid ingesting other poisonous substances naturally found or artificially added in the animal meat. The new “meat” will be virus free and it can have the texture we most enjoy. Most important, the new food will be freed from any guilt of having to destroy another precious creation of nature (a life) to feed ourselves. I am sure that things will evolve in this direction and the actual farms will become industrial factories for growing artificial tissue that we can use for consumption. I just think we need to speed up the process a little bit. It will help our evolution as specie both physically and morally. The new food will probably not taste the way it does today, but tastes can be easily re-educated. I am sure our nephews will find it as disgusting to eat a living creature as we find it today to eat human meat.
Most of these substances were supervised by specialized agencies and are supposed to be safe for consumption. However, I tend to believe that it is very difficult to properly asses the kind of imbalances that certain supposedly safe substances produce in the human body, especially in the long run. Moreover, intensive farming lead to the development of new and more lethal diseases on animals; these can fairly easy be passed to the humans, through consumption of contaminated meat.
All these shortcomings are in place because of the huge increase in food demand, and it will be impossible at this stage to feed an entire city without the aid of the adequate preservatives, anti-oxidants or sweeteners added to food. People started eating many substances discovered in the last decades. The body is bombed with these chemicals, and the long run effects are difficult to be predicted even by the most elaborate studies. Probably some of us will adapt and survive fairly well with the “new food”, while there will be a lot of casualties as well. It is part of the evolution process.
Now, related to evolution here is another issue. I think humankind should stop feeding with other living creatures. Not immediately, probably, but when this will be accomplished, we will probably move a step further on the evolution’s ladder. While there already are people that avoid eating food derived from animals, I do not suggest that we should all become vegetarians. Proteins are important building blocks of our bodies, and are vital for their proper functioning. The other alternative that I see and I think it lays within our grasp with the actual technologies even, is to try to grow animal-like tissue in an industrial manner. These will be the stakes of the future. Benefits of this kind of food are obvious: we will avoid ingesting other poisonous substances naturally found or artificially added in the animal meat. The new “meat” will be virus free and it can have the texture we most enjoy. Most important, the new food will be freed from any guilt of having to destroy another precious creation of nature (a life) to feed ourselves. I am sure that things will evolve in this direction and the actual farms will become industrial factories for growing artificial tissue that we can use for consumption. I just think we need to speed up the process a little bit. It will help our evolution as specie both physically and morally. The new food will probably not taste the way it does today, but tastes can be easily re-educated. I am sure our nephews will find it as disgusting to eat a living creature as we find it today to eat human meat.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Go West
Go or Weiqi is an ancient Chinese tactics game. Its rules are staggering simple. Black and White stones placed alternatively on the grid of a board by the two competing players with the aim of encircling the opponent and covering most territory. The game is very popular in East Asia, especially in Japan. Despite its simple rules, the complexity of the game is so great that a computerized player is still to be constructed, as opposed to chess, for instance. It has been argued that the strategies involved in the game describe the eastern strategic thinking as opposed to the western way of thinking. I dare to say that it even describes the different approaches to the fundamental values of life in the two societies. An ancient Chinese proverb related to Weiqi says “The real master is known by how much he can accomplish with little resources”
After the collapse of the Soviet Union an all its forged international structures, the Cold War ended. The Western world was breathing easier. It was obvious that the system they proposed was better and likely to succeed in the long run. The former communist countries turned quickly to the market economy and to the western social models. It is obvious that the enhanced competitiveness and productivity induced by the functioning of free markets was essential in creating the technological advance and the better social models of the Western world. Of course, the former communist countries were poised with other problems as well, aside from the economic ones. The ideology was wrong, people were lacking fundamental liberties, oppression and political terror was omnipresent. In all these dimensions, the western countries were far better off. At this point, we can arguably assert that democracy is the best social system we know, for promoting the values enlisted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
However, in the aftermath of the Cold War, no one seemed to be much concerned with the question of whether the democracy is really a one-size hat that fits all. Even more, a pressure has been created, to point out that western world features the most advanced social system and those countries that do not adhere to the western values must be somehow lagging behind in their development. But free market comes also with the urge of consumption and with raising the living standards in what seems to be a sort of a race.
This type of consumerism behavior has been pressing hard on the secular Asian societies; China and India being the most significant new members of the consumerism club.
I do not argue that democracy is not good and market economy is not the most efficient way to redistribute resources. On the contrary, I totally agree with the fact that democracy is the best environment for human liberties to thrive, and certainly most of the market economy features are desirable for a proper development of society. However, maybe a critical approach would have been more appropriate after the communism collapse, and Western societies should have avoided creating any pressure on societies that have so different secular values.
I just don’t think that consumerism is what fits best the Chinese way of life and maybe India’s too, and I don’t think it will do them much good; not to mention the indirect effects on the wellbeing of the other parts of the world, western countries included.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union an all its forged international structures, the Cold War ended. The Western world was breathing easier. It was obvious that the system they proposed was better and likely to succeed in the long run. The former communist countries turned quickly to the market economy and to the western social models. It is obvious that the enhanced competitiveness and productivity induced by the functioning of free markets was essential in creating the technological advance and the better social models of the Western world. Of course, the former communist countries were poised with other problems as well, aside from the economic ones. The ideology was wrong, people were lacking fundamental liberties, oppression and political terror was omnipresent. In all these dimensions, the western countries were far better off. At this point, we can arguably assert that democracy is the best social system we know, for promoting the values enlisted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
However, in the aftermath of the Cold War, no one seemed to be much concerned with the question of whether the democracy is really a one-size hat that fits all. Even more, a pressure has been created, to point out that western world features the most advanced social system and those countries that do not adhere to the western values must be somehow lagging behind in their development. But free market comes also with the urge of consumption and with raising the living standards in what seems to be a sort of a race.
This type of consumerism behavior has been pressing hard on the secular Asian societies; China and India being the most significant new members of the consumerism club.
I do not argue that democracy is not good and market economy is not the most efficient way to redistribute resources. On the contrary, I totally agree with the fact that democracy is the best environment for human liberties to thrive, and certainly most of the market economy features are desirable for a proper development of society. However, maybe a critical approach would have been more appropriate after the communism collapse, and Western societies should have avoided creating any pressure on societies that have so different secular values.
I just don’t think that consumerism is what fits best the Chinese way of life and maybe India’s too, and I don’t think it will do them much good; not to mention the indirect effects on the wellbeing of the other parts of the world, western countries included.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Volatility in the finacial markets
There is no doubt that financial markets are the hallmark of the western economies or the core of the market economies. In fact, the phenomenon is global and even centralized economies like China feature financial markets. Started initially to facilitate stock trading, today they are extremely complex institutions and the range of financial instruments available for transactions is simply staggering. And, of course, new types of instruments appear every day.
It is obvious that they have an important role for the proper functioning of the market economy; they allow transferring financial resources from where they surplus to where they are needed; they facilitate diverting and dispersing risks associated with any economic endeavor; they allow hedging against risks collateral to the core activity of various companies. These are, of course, just a few of the financial markets beneficial purposes. There are a countless number of others, pure speculative purposes being an important share of them. Speculating on any financial market, with any financial instrument, is not bad in itself. Its part of the game and it helps creating opportunities where they would not otherwise be.
What is worrisome is that the whole system, with the complex interaction between geographically distinct financial markets, seems to have a life of its own. Normally, trends in financial markets should be correlated with the core economic activity, whether preceding or following it, but correlated in same way and to same extent. It is, however, obvious that an important part of the financial markets variation is induced by some other hard to specify and even harder to quantify, mainly psychological reasons. This points out to the fact the financial system is increasingly independent, with its own life and own moods. We should perhaps ponder very carefully if this increased autonomy is always beneficial or it can, sometimes, be damaging to an otherwise healthy economy.
It is obvious that they have an important role for the proper functioning of the market economy; they allow transferring financial resources from where they surplus to where they are needed; they facilitate diverting and dispersing risks associated with any economic endeavor; they allow hedging against risks collateral to the core activity of various companies. These are, of course, just a few of the financial markets beneficial purposes. There are a countless number of others, pure speculative purposes being an important share of them. Speculating on any financial market, with any financial instrument, is not bad in itself. Its part of the game and it helps creating opportunities where they would not otherwise be.
What is worrisome is that the whole system, with the complex interaction between geographically distinct financial markets, seems to have a life of its own. Normally, trends in financial markets should be correlated with the core economic activity, whether preceding or following it, but correlated in same way and to same extent. It is, however, obvious that an important part of the financial markets variation is induced by some other hard to specify and even harder to quantify, mainly psychological reasons. This points out to the fact the financial system is increasingly independent, with its own life and own moods. We should perhaps ponder very carefully if this increased autonomy is always beneficial or it can, sometimes, be damaging to an otherwise healthy economy.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Sustainable Development and Welfare
It is certain that economic activities have an important impact on the environment. In fact, the impact is critical. One of its most obvious consequences is the greenhouse effect. We know that the accelerating rate of technological progress has certainly lead to improved life conditions for the humankind, at least in some regions of the world. However, actual technical progress is not sufficient to allow us the handling of all the natural phenomena that occur on the planet Earth. And, while the planet provides us with optimal conditions for sustaining life, these conditions are the outcome of a very fragile equilibrium. It is certain that with our actual technologies, we cannot cope with an alteration of this equilibrium. Hence, we have to seek a rate of activity and development that comes at peace with the above mentioned equilibrium.
Development is important. Why is it important? It is important because it facilitates better life conditions for the human species. It comes with an extending of the life span for the Homo sapiens; it provides a better handling of the existent resources and a more even distribution of these resources among individuals; this in turn leads to decrease in frictions (wars etc.) between humans. Eventually, it will provide us with the tools needed to cope with the major changes in the earth’s environment.But, once established that we do need development, we do need technical progress and we do need economic and productive activities, we will have to look into the proper rate of development, in such a way that it will not impair the planet’s natural equilibrium.
People were not aware through most part of the XXth century that development and sustained economic activity can seriously harm the environment. At least, not so much as they are today. The effects of the climate change are easily detectable and forced many to become aware of the negative externalities of human activity.
These threats for the natural climate were triggered by human activities, especially by the intense economic activity in the last century. It is rather useless to ask which nation or which continent had a higher contribution to these changes, but one thing is sure, and that is that the negative effects affect us all, in all regions of the world, on all continents.
Development is important. Why is it important? It is important because it facilitates better life conditions for the human species. It comes with an extending of the life span for the Homo sapiens; it provides a better handling of the existent resources and a more even distribution of these resources among individuals; this in turn leads to decrease in frictions (wars etc.) between humans. Eventually, it will provide us with the tools needed to cope with the major changes in the earth’s environment.But, once established that we do need development, we do need technical progress and we do need economic and productive activities, we will have to look into the proper rate of development, in such a way that it will not impair the planet’s natural equilibrium.
People were not aware through most part of the XXth century that development and sustained economic activity can seriously harm the environment. At least, not so much as they are today. The effects of the climate change are easily detectable and forced many to become aware of the negative externalities of human activity.
These threats for the natural climate were triggered by human activities, especially by the intense economic activity in the last century. It is rather useless to ask which nation or which continent had a higher contribution to these changes, but one thing is sure, and that is that the negative effects affect us all, in all regions of the world, on all continents.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
An EconQuant?
What EconQuant stands for?
It is term borrowed from the finance world. For a financier, a quant is a guy who uses sophisticated mathematical models to explain things on the stock market. Sometimes these things are very simple.
I am a social economist. This means I use mathematical reasoning to explain social phenomena from an economic perspective. Social phenomena do not always have economic motivations. But I want to think they have. It makes my reasoning easier. For this, I have to invent a special individual, which I will call homo oeconomicus (read “omo economicus”). This guy resembles the normal, average citizen in many ways. But it also differs, sometimes in a fundamentally different way.
Maybe I should say it’s not me who invented the concept. But since there is no official author, no trademark, I use it as my own (please don’t sue me if you DO claim ownership).
Why did I choose to blogg? Because it’s trendy and because I can get feedback on my opinions in a form that is not a peer-review.
I hope you will find my views entertaining and useful. Any feedback (that is not in the form of a rotten egg) is welcome.
It is term borrowed from the finance world. For a financier, a quant is a guy who uses sophisticated mathematical models to explain things on the stock market. Sometimes these things are very simple.
I am a social economist. This means I use mathematical reasoning to explain social phenomena from an economic perspective. Social phenomena do not always have economic motivations. But I want to think they have. It makes my reasoning easier. For this, I have to invent a special individual, which I will call homo oeconomicus (read “omo economicus”). This guy resembles the normal, average citizen in many ways. But it also differs, sometimes in a fundamentally different way.
Maybe I should say it’s not me who invented the concept. But since there is no official author, no trademark, I use it as my own (please don’t sue me if you DO claim ownership).
Why did I choose to blogg? Because it’s trendy and because I can get feedback on my opinions in a form that is not a peer-review.
I hope you will find my views entertaining and useful. Any feedback (that is not in the form of a rotten egg) is welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
