Tainter - The collapse of complex societies IV

Collapse then is not a fall to some primordial chaos, but a return to the normal human condition of lower complexity. The notion that collapse is uniformly a catastrophe is contradicted, moreover, by the present theory. To the extent that collapse is due to declining marginal returns on investment in complexity, it is a economizing process. It occurs when it becomes necessary to restore the marginal return on organizational investment to a more favorable level. [...] In a situation where the marginal utility of still greater complexity would be too low, collapse is a economical alternative.

[...]

Collapse occurs, and can only occur, in a power vacuum. Collapse is possible only where there is no competitor strong enough to fill the political vacuum of disintegration. Where such a competitor does exist there can be no collapse, for the competitor will expand territorially to administer the population left leaderless. Collapse is not the same thing as change of regime. Where peer polities interact collapse will affect all equally, and when it occurs, provided that no outside competitor is powerful enough to absorb all. [...] there are major differences between the current and the ancient worlds that have important implications for collapse. One of these is that the world today is full. That is to say, it is filled by complex societies; these occupy every sector of the globe, except the most desolate. This is a new factor in human history. Complex societies as a whole are a recent and unusual aspect of human life. The current situation, where all societies are so oddly constituted, is unique. [...] There are no power vacuums left today. Every nation is linked to, and influenced by, the major powers, and most are strongly linked with one power bloc or the other. [...] Collapse, if and when it comes again, will this time be global. No longer can any individual nation collapse. World civilization will disintegrate as a whole. Competitors who evolve as peers collapse in like manner.

Tainter - The collapse of complex societies III

Any complex hierarchy must allocate a portion of its resource base to solving the problems of the population it administers, but must also set aside resources to solve problems created by its own existence, and created by virtue of overall societal complexity. Prior to the development of modern welfare states it is likely that these increased administrative costs did little for the population as a whole other than to maintain some semblance of basic needs. And often even that was not accomplished. To maintain growth in complexity, hierarchies levy heavier taxes on their populations. At some point even this yields declining marginal returns. This happens when rates are so high that avoidance increases, and taxation-induced infation erodes the value of the money collected.

Rulers [...] must constantly legitimize their reigns. Legitimizing activities include such things as external defense and internal order, alleviating the effects of local productivity fluctuations, undertaking local development projects, and providing food and entertainment (as in Imperial Rome) for urban masses. In many cases the productivity of these legitimizing investments will decline. Whatever activities a hierarchy undertakes initially to bond a population to itself (providing defense, agricultural development, public works, bread and circuses, and the like) often thereafter become de rigueur, so that further bonding activities are at higher cost, with little or no additional benefit to the hierarchy. [...] The alternative course is to reduce legitimizing activities and increase other means of behavioral control. Yet in such situations, as resources committed to benefits decline, resources committed to control must increase. Although quantitative cost/beneft data for such control systems are rare, it seems reasonable to infer that as the costs of coercion increase, the benefits (in the form of population compliance) probably do not grow proportionately [...] These remarks are not meant to suggest that social evolution carries no benefits, nor that the marginal product of social complexity always declines. The marginal product of any investment declines only after a certain point; prior to that point benefits increase faster than costs. Very often, though, societies do reach a level where continued investment in complexity yields a declining marginal return. At that point the society is investing heavily in an evolutionary course that is becoming less and less productive, where at increased cost it is able to do little more than maintain the status quo.

[...]

For human societies, the best key to continued socioeconomic growth, and to avoiding or circumventing (or at least financing) declines in marginal productivity, is to obtain a new energy subsidy when it becomes apparent that marginal productivity is beginning to drop. Among modern societies this has been accomplished by tapping fossil fuel reserves and the atom. Among societies without the technical springboard necessary for such development, the usual temptation is to acquire an energy subsidy through territorial expansion.

Tainter - The collapse of complex societies II

[I]ntensification in agriculture and resource production follows a pattern of declining marginal productivity [...] rationally-acting human populations will first exploit those resources that yield the best return per unit of effort, and still meet the needs of the population. If this is so, then it follows that any change in resource extraction must be in the direction of using resources that are more costly to obtain, process, distribute, and/or market, so that the marginal product of labor and other inputs declines. Thus, hunters and gatherers first exploit foods that are higher in nutritional value, and easier to obtain and process, than resources that are less favorable for these characteristics [...] In other spheres of resource extraction, minerals and energy forms can be ranked in terms of their ease of discovery, extraction, processing, and use. Resources that rank higher in these dimensions will be used before resources that don't, and when these are no longer sufficient, secondary resources will be employed. [...] Among whatever set of resources a population obtains, for whatever reasons, the law of diminishing returns is likely to apply. As demand for a commodity grows, increased production will at some point mean depletion or insuffciency of the least costly sources. At that point, more costly sources must be used, with declining marginal returns.

Tainter - The collapse of complex societies I

Despite a institutionalized authority structure, an ideological basis, and a monopoly of force, the rulers of states share at least one thing with chiefs and Big Men: the need to establish and constantly reinforce legitimacy. In complex as well as simpler societies, leadership activities and societal resources must be continuously devoted to this purpose. Hierarchy and complexity, as noted, are rare in human history, and where present require constant reinforcement. No societal leader is ever far from the need to validate position and policy, and no hierarchical society can be organized without explicit provision for this need.

Legitimacy is the belief of the populace and the elites that rule is proper and valid, that the political world is as it should be. It pertains to individual rulers, to decisions, to broad policies, to parties, and to entire forms of government. The support that members are willing to extend to a political system is essential for its survival. Decline in support will not necessarily lead to the fall of a regime, for to a certain extent coercion can replace commitment to ensure compliance. Coercion, though, is a costly, ineffective strategy which can never be completely or permanently successful. Even with coercion, decline in popular support below some critical minimum leads infallibly to political failure. Establishing moral validity is a less costly and more effective approach.

Nacionalismo

[...] There is however a less obvious, but far more important difference between nationalism and familial favoritism: Despite its mighty evolutionary basis, almost everyone recognizes moral strictures against familial favoritism. Almost everyone knows that “It would help my son” is not a good reason to commit murder, break someone’s arm, or steal. Indeed, almost everyone knows that “It would help my son” is not a good reason for even petty offenses – like judging a Tae Kwon Do tournament unfairly because your son’s a contestant.

Nationalism, in contrast, is widely seen as an acceptable excuse for horrific crimes against outgroups. Do you plan to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent foreign civilians? Just say, “It will save American [German/Japanese/Russian/whatever] lives” – and other members of your tribe will nod their heads. Do you want to deprive millions of foreigners of the basic human rights to sell their labor to willing buyers, rent apartments from willing landlords, and buy groceries from willing merchants? Just say, “It’s necessary to protect American jobs” in a self-righteous tone, then bask in the admiration of your fellow citizens - Bryan Caplan [via Café Hayek]

Falácia de Projecção Mental

Alfred North Whitehead no seu livro Process and Reality de 1929 apresentou o que ficou conhecido como The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness:

neglecting the degree of abstraction involved when an actual entity is considered merely so far as it exemplifies certain categories of thought (pg.11).

Este é um aviso sobre o erro de confundir o abstracto com o concreto. Esta ideia possui várias denominações. Talvez a mais conhecida seja a de Alfred Korzybski, 'O mapa não é o território'.

A este mesmo problema E.T. Jaynes designou por Falácia de Projecção Mental. No texto seguinte Jaynes usa-o para discutir as interpretações da teoria quântica e como a confusão entre estes dois níveis -- entre ontologia e epistemologia -- pode ter estado na origem do célebre desacordo de que deus não joga aos dados entre Einstein e Bohr:

The failure of quantum theorists to distinguish in calculations between several quite different meanings of 'probability', between expectation values and actual values, makes us do things that don't need to be done; and to fail to do things that do need to be done. We fail to distinguish in our verbiage between prediction and measurement. For example, the famous vague phrases: 'It is impossible to specify...'; or 'It is impossible to define...' can be interpreted equally well as statements about prediction or statements about measurement. Thus the demonstrably correct statement that the present formalism cannot predict something becomes perverted into the logically unjustified (and almost certainly false) claim that the experimentalist cannot measure it!

We routinely commit the Mind Projection Fallacy: supposing that creations of our own imagination are real properties of Nature, or that our own ignorance signifies some indecision on the part of Nature. It is then impossible to agree on the proper place of information in physics. This muddying up of the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality is carried to the point where we find some otherwise rational physicists, on the basis of the Bell inequality experiments, asserting the objective reality of probabilities, while denying the objective reality of atoms! These sloppy habits of language have tricked us into mystical, pre-scientific standards of logic, and leave the meaning of any QM result ambiguous. Yet from decades of trial-and-error we have managed to learn how to calculate with enough art and tact so that we come out with the right numbers!

The main suggestion we wish to make is that how we look at basic probability theory has deep implications for the Bohr-Einstein positions. Only since 1988 has it appeared to the writer that we might be able finally to resolve these matters in the happiest way imaginable: a reconciliation of the views of Bohr and Einstein in which we can see that they were both right in the essentials, but just thinking on different levels.

Einstein's thinking is always on the ontological level traditional in physics; trying to describe the realities of Nature. Bohr's thinking is always on the epistemological level, describing not reality but only our information about reality. The peculiar flavor of his language arises from the absence of all words with any ontological import. J. C. Polkinghorne (1989, pp. 78,79) came independently to this same conclusion about the reason why physicists have such difficulty in reading Bohr. He quotes Bohr as saying:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

[...] Bohr would chide both Wigner and Oppenheimer for asking ontological questions, which he held to be illegitimate. Those who, like Einstein (and, up until recently, the present writer) tried to read ontological meaning into Bohr's statements, were quite unable to comprehend his message. This applies not only to his critics but equally to his disciples, who undoubtedly embarrassed Bohr considerably by offering such ontological explanations as "Instantaneous quantum jumps are real physical events." or "The variable is created by the act of measurement.", or the remark of Pauli quoted above, which might be rendered loosely as "Not only are you and I ignorant of x and p; Nature herself does not know what they are."

We disagree strongly with one aspect of Bohr's quoted statement above; in our view, the existence of a real world that was not created in our imagination, and which continues to go about its business according to its own laws, independently of what humans think or do, is the primary experimental fact of all, without which there would be no point to physics or any other science.

The whole purpose of science is learn what that reality is and what its laws are. On the other hand, we can see in Bohr's statement a very important fact, not sufficiently appreciated by scientists today as a necessary part of that program to learn about reality. Any theory about reality can have no consequences testable by us unless it can also describe what humans can see and know. For example, special relativity theory implies that it is fundamentally impossible for us to have knowledge of any event that lies outside our past light cone. Although our ultimate goal is ontological, the process of achieving that goal necessarily involves the acquisition and processing of human information. This information processing aspect of science has not, in our view, been sufficiently stressed by scientists (including Einstein himself, although we do not think that he would have rejected the idea).

Although Bohr's whole way of thinking was very different from Einstein's, it does not follow that either was wrong. In the writer's present view, all of Einstein's thinking (in particular the EPR argument) remains valid today, when we take into account its ontological purpose and character. But today, when we are beginning to consider the role of information for science in general, it may be useful to note that we are finally taking a step in the epistemological direction that Bohr was trying to point out sixty years ago.

But our present QM formalism is not purely epistemological; it is a peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information about Nature - all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we think that the unscrambling is a prerequisite for any further advance in basic physical theory. For, if we cannot separate the subjective and objective aspects of the formalism, we cannot know what we are talking about; it is just that simple. E.T. Jaynes, Probability in Quantum Theory (1996).

Adaptação

"[The Dis] wanted their civilization to last forever— that's the one thing we do know about them. They built for the ages in everything they did. The evidence is that they did last a very long time— maybe eighty million years. But early on, they discovered a disquieting truth we are only just learning ourselves. It is this: Sentience and toolmaking abilities are powerful ways for a species to move into a new ecological niche. But in the long run, sentient, toolmaking beings are never the fittest species for a given niche. What I mean is, if you need tools to survive, you're not well fitted to your environment. And if you no longer need to use tools, you'll eventually lose the capacity to create them. It doesn't matter how smart you are, or how well you plan: Over the longest of the long term, millions of years, species that have evolved to be comfortable in a particular environment will always win out. And by definition, a species that's well fitted to a given environment is one that doesn't need tools to survive in it.

[...]

"It's the same with consciousness. We know now that it evolves to enable a species to deal with unforeseen situations. By definition, anything we've mastered becomes instinctive. Walking is not something we have to consciously think about, right? Well, what about physics, chemistry, social engineering? If we have to think about them, we haven't mastered them— they are still troublesome to us. A species that succeeds in really mastering something like physics has no more need to be conscious of it. Quantum mechanics becomes an instinct, the way ballistics already is for us. Originally, we must have had to put a lot of thought into throwing things like rocks or spears. We eventually evolved to be able to throw without thinking— and that is a sign of things to come. Some day, we'll become like the people of Dis, able to maintain a technological infrastructure without needing to think about it. Without needing to think, at all…

"The builders of Dis faced a dilemma: The best way to survive in the long run on any world they colonized was to adapt yourself to the environment. The best survivors would be those who no longer needed technology to get by. They tried to outlaw such alterations, but how do you do such a thing for the long term without suppressing the scientific knowledge that makes it possible? Over tens or thousands of millennia, you can only do this by suppressing all technological development, because technologies intertwine. This tactic results in the same spiral into nontechnological life. So inevitably, subspecies appeared that were better survivors in a given locale, because they didn't need technology in that locale. This happened every time, on all their worlds.

"The inhabitants of Dis had studied previous starfaring species. The records are hard to decipher, but I found evidence that all previous galactic civilizations had succumbed to the same internal contradictions. The Dis-builders tried to avoid their fate, but over the ages they were replaced on all their worlds by fitter offspring. These descendents had no need for tools, for culture, for historical records. They and their environment were one. The conscious, spacefaring species could always come back and take over easily from them. But given enough time… and time always passes… the same end result would occur. They would be replaced again. And so they saw that their very strength, the highest attainments they as a species had achieved, contained the seeds of their downfall.

"This discovery finally explained to us why toolmaking species are rare to begin with. It takes an unusual combination of factors to create a species that is fit enough to survive, but at the same time is so unfit in its native environment that it must turn to its weakest organ, its brain, for help. Reliance on tools is a tremendous handicap for any species; only a few manage to turn it into an asset.

"The builders of Dis knew they were doomed. We all are: technological civilization represents a species' desperate attempt to build a bubble to keep hostile environments at bay. Sentient species also never cooperate with one another over the long term, because the environments they need in order to live are incompatible. Some, like the Chicxulub, accept this easily and try to exterminate everyone else. Even they can't stop their own evolution and so eventually they cease to be starfaring species. Destruction or devolution are the only choices."

Karl Schroeder - Permanence

Perfeito, Imperfeito

O teorema de Bayes mostra como se deve integrar nova evidência ao conhecimento prévio já adquirido. A sua aplicação determina exactamente como a inferência e a aprendizagem podem ser optimizadas. Porém, não é assim que a cognição humana funciona. Para entender esta são necessários modelos de inferência imperfeitos, complexos, prevendo decisões que possam ser sub-óptimas, até incoerentes (e.g., a Prospect Theory de Daniel Kahneman). Este é um reflexo da história evolutiva do nosso cérebro que, como tudo o resto na evolução, é o possível entre as limitações físicas e cognitivas, o contigente da geografia, do clima e do tempo onde a nossa espécie se desenvolveu, dos compromissos cegos do passado.

Distância

As palavras representam um compromisso de significados. Cada imagem do mundo, cada pessoa, encontra na linguagem uma tradução comum, uma comunicação privilegiada com os outros. Mas esta tradução tem falhas, desacordos que passam sem ser anunciados sendo, com suficiente azar, fontes de tragédia. A maioria das palavras não aparentam ter este problema, como 'formiga', 'unha', 'amarelo'. Infelizmente, porque decerto não é coincidência, palavras com impacto social, como 'política', 'igualdade' ou 'juramento', são riquíssimas em equívocos. Veja-se esta última, 'juramento'. Detenho dois significados distintos desta palavra: (i) o intuito de respeitar a promessa feita independentemente do contexto, ou (ii) o intuito de respeitar a promessa só enquanto os pressupostos iniciais continuem a ser respeitados. A distância entre estas duas interpretações é a distância que separa, por exemplo, um energúmeno com farda de um polícia.

Evidências II

Este tipo de preconceito irá ocorrer mais cedo ou mais tarde (a não ser que o mundo actual impluda). Vai ser curioso ver filósofos e cientistas a torcerem-se para negar a evidência crescente de comportamento consciente da parte da nossa futura Inteligência Artificial. Algo similar está hoje a ocorrer com as discussões sobre o liver arbítrio contra a evidência da neurociência.

Políticas

Como pode uma economia sustentável ser compatível com a exigência de crescimento constante? Uma economia que tem de crescer para existir não lida bem com limites ou fronteiras. Só que o mundo é este, tem um volume fixo, e há décadas que usamos mais do que a sua capacidade natural de regeneração. A tecnologia e a ciência também têm limites humanos e económicos, e é provável que tenhamos, neste domínio, já entrado em ganhos decrescentes. Se, por azar nosso, uma economia sustentável for similar a um ecossistema, como parar, dar um passo atrás, como travar este comboio desgovernado que insistimos em acelerar?

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (2/2)

"Comrade Members, like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom--if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant. Move slowly, be hesitant, puzzle out the consequences of every word. I would not be unhappy if this [constitutional] convention sat for ten years before reporting--but I would be frightened if you took less than a year.
"Distrust the obvious, suspect the traditional . . . for in the past mankind has not done well when saddling itself with governments. For example, I note in one draft report a proposal for setting up a commission to divide Luna into congressional districts and to reapportion them from time to time according to population.
"This is the traditional way; therefore it should be suspect, considered guilty until proved innocent. Perhaps you feel that this is the only way. May I suggest others? Surely where a man lives is the least important thing about him. Constituencies might be formed by dividing people by occupation. . . or by age. . . or even alphabetically. Or they might not be divided, every member elected at large---and do not object that this would make it impossible for any man not widely known throughout Luna to be elected; that might be the best possible thing for Luna.
"You might even consider installing the candidates who receive the least number of votes; unpopular men may be just the sort to save you from a new tyranny. Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous--think about it! In past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes far worse than overt tyrannies.
"But if representative government turns out to be your intention there still may be ways to achieve it better than the territorial district. For example you each represent about ten thousand human beings, perhaps seven thousand of voting age--and some of you were elected by slim majorities. Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by four thousand citizens. He would then represent those four thousand affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would have been a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with eight thousand supporters might have two votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out--many of them! But you could work them out. . . and thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government, the disgruntled minority which feels--correctly!--that it has been disenfranchised.
"But, whatever you do, do not let the past be a straitjacket!
"I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent--the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority . . . while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
"But in writing your constitution let me invite attention the wonderful virtues of the negative! Accentuate the negative! Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do. No conscript armies . . . no interference however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation. . . no involuntary taxation. Comrades, if you were to spend five years in a study of history while thinking of more and more things that your governinen should promise never to do and then let your constitution be nothing but those negatives, I would not fear the outcome.
"What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing."

Robert A. Heinlein - The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (1/2)

[...]But I'm no Marxist; we Fifths have a practical program. Private where private belongs, public where it's needed, and an admission that circumstances alter cases. Nothing doctrinaire."
"Capital punishment?"
"For what?"
"Let's say for treason. Against Luna after you've freed Luna."
"Treason how? Unless I knew the circumstances I could not decide."
"Nor could I, dear Wyoming. But I believe in capital punishment under some circumstances. . . with this difference. I would not ask a court; I would try, condemn, execute sentence myself, and accept full responsibility."
"But--Professor, what are your political beliefs?"
"I'm a rational anarchist."
"I don't know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian--those I know. But what's this? Randite?"
"I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."
Robert A. Heinlein - The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

Separação

"Anyone of any persuasion ought to be able to acknowledge that economic logic indicates that imposing a price ceiling on milk will, other things equal, create a shortage of milk. But that in itself is not an argument against the policy. Mises assumed the policymaker would have thought that result bad, but the economist qua economist cannot declare it such. As Israel Kirzner likes to say, the economist’s job in the policy realm is merely to point out that you cannot catch a northbound train from the southbound platform." - Sheldon Richman

Alegoria

No corporativismo está implícito um desvalorizar sistemático da verdade dos factos e da justiça das situações. Quando polícias, professores, magistrados, sindicatos ou outras corporações protegem-se entre si e à priori numa narrativa monolítica, autista e desculpabilizante pagam o preço do Pedro e do Lobo: quando dizem a verdade, quando têm razão, poucos acreditam.

Áreas de Influência

O Estado não devia ter qualquer ligação com a noção de casamento consensual entre pessoas adultas. E nas áreas em que existe essa ligação (como a adopção, a recolha de impostos, etc.) devia focar-se na noção de agregado familiar e não preocupar-se se as pessoas em questão apenas fazem sexo catolicamente correcto.

Modelos

"What we see of the real world is not the unvarnished real world but a model of the real world, regulated and adjusted by sense data - a model that is constructed so that it is useful for dealing with the real world. The nature of that model depends on the kind of animal we are. A flying animal needs a different kind of world model from a walking, a climbing or a swimming animal. Predators need a different kind of model from prey, even though their worlds necessarily overlap. A monkey's brain must have software capable of simulating a three-dimensional maze of branches and trunks. A water boatman's brain doesn't need 3D software, since it lives on the surface of the pond in an Edwin Abbott Flatland. [...] The point is that the nature of the model is governed by how it is to be used rather than by the sensory modality involved. [...] The general form of the mind model - as opposed to the variables that are constantly being inputted by sensory nerves - is an adaptation to the animal's way of life, no less than its wings, legs and tail are." Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

Leite

Esvaziamento

O livre-arbítrio é um conceito filosófica e cientificamente estéril. Considerando qualquer situação passada, se repetíssemos o mesmo estado do mundo, agiríamos sempre da mesma forma. A evidência existente aponta de forma esmagadora para esta possibilidade. A não ser que aceitemos uma perspectiva dualista - e.g., a existência de uma alma imaterial - não há fundamentos para afirmar que as mesmas condições poderiam dar lugar a decisões diferentes. E actualmente, considera-se o dualismo como um conceito epistemologicamente inútil, tal como os deuses, a referida alma, o vitalismo ou o elã vital.

É comum, nesta temática, referir o problema do determinismo como ameaça ao livre-arbítrio. Por isso, os seus defensores tentam minar a afirmação do determinismo, levantando dúvidas e argumentos à sua existência mais ou menos relevantes. Os dois lados podem concordar num ponto: nunca teremos a certeza que o mundo é determinista. A noção de certeza é uma assimptota, um ideal ao qual apontamos como objectivo mas que não chegamos a alcançar. Nunca teremos a certeza sobre um certo X mas podemos, com esforço e método, chegar a um ponto ao qual afirmamos X muito para lá da dúvida razoável. Este tipo de certeza ocorre no corpo de conhecimento de disciplinas como a física, a química ou a biologia. E a maioria desse conhecimento aponta para um mundo determinista. Os poucos casos na teoria clássica que parecem indeterministas, como as singularidades nuas entre outras situações patológicas, estão tão afastadas do nosso universo local (assumindo que realmente existem), são tão pouco relevantes no nosso dia-a-dia, que não encerram força argumentativa na discussão da cognição humana. Situações potencialmente locais, como o choque simultâneo de três corpos, se bem que não deterministas no contexto clássico, são eventos de probabilidade negligenciável (correspondem a conjuntos de eventos de medida nula).

O último reduto de indeterminismo parece ser a teoria quântica. Não na dinâmica resultante das suas equações, que é totalmente determinista, mas no acto de interferência ou observação. A interpretação de Copenhaga é manifestamente não determinista mas admiti-la levanta demasiados problemas sendo alvo de muita controvérsia desde o início da sua formulação. Já a interpretação de muitos mundos (many-worlds) defende que nada de mais acontece para lá da dinâmica determinista da equação de Schrödinger. Para explicar o aparente não-determinismo resultante do acto de observação, esta interpretação refere apenas que nós vivemos apenas em um de múltiplos ramos da dinâmica quântica. É deixado intocado o determinismo que já se encontrava nas equações, sacrificando para isso a nossa capacidade última de observação, uma perspectiva menos antropocêntrica e mais racional que a interpretação de Copenhaga. Mas, mesmo assumindo a interpretação de Copenhaga, é difícil imaginar como um evento não-determinista no mundo sub-atómico possa resgatar um conceito tantos níveis de abstracção acima como é o processo de decisão de uma mente humana (ou seja, como o arbítrio quântico se transforma em arbítrio humano?).

Há também quem argumente de acordo com a ideia que o mundo não pode ser determinista porque isso implicaria o colapso das noções de liberdade e de responsabilidade individual. Mas esta linha argumentativa é um non sequitur. O mundo é o que é. Uma ameaça à civilização, por mais grave ou iminente que seja, não tem qualquer efeito sobre a natureza do mundo externo. E, de qualquer forma, estes importantes conceitos não precisam ser abandonados:

• A liberdade é a possibilidade de termos disponíveis mais escolhas e de agirmos de acordo com a nossa escolha preferencial. Isso não depende do mundo ser determinista: uma pessoa tem opções e age segundo elas, seja o processo de decisão determinista ou não (aliás, um processo demasiado não determinista seria, este sim, uma ameaça a regras sociais estáveis);
• A responsabilidade é um conceito social. Ela é julgada moral e socialmente de acordo com as regras da sociedade em questão. E mais uma vez, isso não depende da natureza ontológica do mundo externo. Depende sim dos diversos modelos - sociais, científicos, éticos, religiosos - que a sociedade partilha e utiliza no seu dia-a-dia. É natural que novo conhecimento seja incorporado na sociedade e altere a sua perspectiva, como a moderna noção de inimputabilidade de certos doentes mentais. Mas, em última análise, as sociedades têm de ser capazes de manter um mecanismo coerente e sustentável de responsabilidade individual, qualquer que seja o conhecimento adquirido. A justiça, tradicionalmente o corpo social que formaliza e gere conflitos de responsabilidade, é um corpo independente. Ela recebe ajuda da ética, da ciência e da lógica, mas não depende delas para se fundar e funcionar.

Temos cada vez melhores modelos sobre o mundo, o cérebro humano e a forma como a mente funciona e interage. Cada vez mais parecem vazias ou incoerentes noções como o livre-arbítrio e o não-determinismo. Cada vez mais as discussões filosóficas nestes temas se parecem com as discussões sobre anjos ou almas da teologia antiga. Este é apenas mais um campo onde as discussões foram esvaziadas de significado pelo progresso do conhecimento humano.

Cegueira & Surdez

(c) Abstruse Goose

Identidade e anonimato

"Opponents of online anonymity often repeat the platitude that “real name” identification promotes civility. While that may be true, it is often at the expense of free expression. Not only does anonymity enable dissidents in oppressive regimes, but it also helps the small-town kid experimenting with his sexuality or the abuse survivor starting a new life.

Internet intermediaries offer tools that allow users to maintain civility without sacrificing anonymity. On social networks, users can moderate offensive comments or block users who are harassing them. Newspapers can institute systems for flagging inappropriate comments.

Concerns about cyber-bullying and other online crimes shouldn’t be dismissed, but law enforcement already has tools to identify anonymous criminals. [...] We should not be willing to sacrifice free expression for the possibility of civility, especially not when there are more effective alternatives." Eva Galperin, Jillian C. York @ DeepLinks

Selecção Natural

Uma citação de Richard Dawkins retirada do livro "The God Delusion" que resume o essencial da selecção natural, do ponto de vista genético:

In its most general form, natural selection must choose between alternative replicators. A replicator is a piece of coded information that makes exact copies of itself, along with occasional inexact copies or 'mutations'. The point about this is the Darwinian one. Those varieties of replicator that happen to be good at getting copied become more numerous at the expense of alternative replicators that are bad at getting copied. That, at its most rudimentary, is natural selection. The archetypal replicator is a gene, a stretch of DNA that is duplicated, nearly always with extreme accuracy, through an indefinite number of generations. [...] In the world of genes, the occasional flaws in replication (mutations) see to it that the gene pool contains alternative variants of any given gene - 'alleles' - which may therefore be seen as competing with each other. Competing for what? For the particular chromosomal slot or 'locus' that belongs to that set of alleles. And how do they compete? Not by direct molecule-to-molecule combat but by proxy. The proxies are their 'phenotypic traits' - things like length or fur colour: manifestations of genes fleshed out as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry or behaviour. A gene's fate is normally bound up with the bodies in which it successively sits. To the extent that it influences those bodies, it affects its own chances of surviving in the gene pool. As the generations go by, genes increase or decrease in frequency in the gene pool by virtue of their phenotypic proxies.

[...]

For didactic purposes, I treated genes as though they were isolated units, acting independently. But of course they are not independent of one another, and this fact shows itself in two ways .First, genes are linearly strung along chromosomes, and so tend to travel through generations in the company of particular other genes that occupy neighbouring chromosomal loci. [...] The other respect in which genes are not independent [...] concerns embryology which - the fact is often mis-understood - is completely distinct from genetics. Bodies are not jigsawed together as mosaics of phenotypic pieces, each one contributed by a different gene. There is no one-to-one mapping between genes and units of anatomy or behaviour. Genes 'collaborate' with hundreds of other genes in programming the developmental processes that culminate in a body, in the same kind of way as the words of a recipe collaborate in a cookery process that culminates in a dish. It is not the case that each word of the recipe corresponds to a different morsel of the dish. Genes, then, co-operate in cartels to build bodies, and that is one of the important principles of embryology. It is tempting to say that natural selection favours cartels of genes in a kind of group selection between alternative cartels. That is confusion. What really happens is that the other genes of the gene pool constitute a major part of the environment in which each gene is selected versus its alleles. Because each is selected to be successful in the presence of the others - which are also being selected in a similar way - cartels of co-operating genes emerge.

[...]

Different kinds of gene cartel emerge in different gene pools. Carnivore gene pools have genes that program prey-detecting sense organs, prey-catching claws, carnassial teeth, meat-digesting enzymes and many other genes, all fine-tuned to co-operate with each other. At the same time, in herbivore gene pools, different sets of mutually compatible genes are favoured for their co-operation with each other. We are familiar with the idea that a gene is favoured for the compatibility of its phenotype with the external environment of the species: desert, woodland or whatever it is. The point I am now making is that it is also favoured for its compatibility with the other genes of its particular gene pool. A carnivore gene would not survive in a herbivore gene pool, and vice versa. In the long gene's-eye-view, the gene pool of the species - the set of genes that are shuffled and reshuffled by sexual reproduction - constitutes the genetic environment in which each gene is selected for its capacity to co-operate.

Limitações da Lei (parte III)

[W]hile unjust laws and changes in law may be legal or valid by virtue of both acceptance and preexisting rules of change, legitimacy may be lost or diminished by an unjust change of law that lessens the people's ability to change the law in the future. In this sense the people's acceptance is a source of authority with continuing omnipotence both descriptively and normatively. Descriptively, the people and the laws are powerless to limit irrevocably the power of acceptance to validate law. Normatively, an unjust legal impediment to the people's continuing power to change law weakens the legitimacy of the system of law to that extent. [pg.105]

[...]

Frederic Coudert argues that the danger of an unwritten constitution is abuse of power by an ineffectively limited government, that the dangers of a written constitution are rigidity and violence triggered by slow and difficult change, and that our system of judicial amendment allows us to escape both dangers. C.P. Patterson believes the power of judicial amendment does not provide the best of both worlds, as Coudert argued, but gives the Supreme Court "the same relation to our Constitution that the English Parliament has to the English Constitution. [pg.200]

[...]

One might argue that actual legal systems depend on, or inevitably embrace, at least a few principles of "natural law" or morality, and that the latter are absolutely immutable. For example, one might argue that not even revolution can change the rule that the people have a right to revolt, that promises should be kept, that self-defense excuses homicide, and so on. [nt.1, sec.8]

Peter Suber - The Paradox of Self-Amendment (1990)

Limitações da Lei (parte II)

I am intrigued by the idea that the manifestation of consent sufficient to adopt a constitution in the first place is the most that can be expected in order to provide continuing authority to that constitution. This means that if amendment is more difficult than the original ratification, then the constitution has lost some degree of authority or legitimacy. The authority of a constitution over generations of citizens who did not ratify it would diminish roughly to the extent that the difficulty they face in amendment exceeds the difficulty of the original ratification. For such citizens, legitimate amendment would be more difficult than a revolution or discontinuity that would establish a new constitution with equal or greater legitimacy than their ancestors had in adopting the old one. If amendment becomes impossible after the first generation, because there is no AC or because courts or tyrants invalidate all attempts under it, then authority under the consent theory would drop to about zero plus any surcharge which citizens accord to rules of law, qua rules of law, before deciding to disobey.

[...]

One of the most important distinctions relating to the paradox of self-amendment and the paradox of omnipotence is borrowed from Hart's discussion of the omnipotent sovereign. An omnipotent parliament, he says, may limit its power to make law, without paradox, if its omnipotence is "self-embracing", and may not do so, at least without paradox, if its omnipotence is "continuing". Self-embracing omnipotence is unlimited power to make law, including power to affect that power. It may be used against itself and lost or limited irremediably. Continuing omnipotence is unlimited power to make law, but not including power to limit that power, thereby insuring that the omnipotence of the entity continues. Self-embracing omnipotence is unlimited but limitable power; continuing omnipotence is limited only to insure that it is (otherwise) illimitable. Self-embracing omnipotence is the power to make law on every subject, and therefore includes laws that diminish this power irremediably, whereas continuing omnipotence is the power to make law at every moment, and therefore excludes laws inconsistent with this very continuity.

[...]

Beings of continuing omnipotence are doomed to life, power, and even doomed to freedom, while beings of self-embracing omnipotence are free to resign, abdicate, and self-destruct. Pliny the Elder said mortals were freer than the gods because mortals could commit suicide. He obviously thought that divine freedom was continuing, and that continuing freedom was inferior to self-embracing freedom. [...] When John Stuart Mill said, "[i]t is not freedom to be allowed to alienate [one's] freedom," he was defining freedom to be a continuing power, and his disagreement with those who would permit people to sell themselves into slavery, become drug addicts, or otherwise freely choose unfreedom, is not so much on the desirability of these acts as on the logic of self-application.

The distinction is very useful, and by extension we may speak of self-embracing and continuing powers to amend. Self-embracing amendment power may amend, limit, or repeal itself, irremediably, while continuing amendment power may not apply to itself, at least to diminish itself irrevocably.

Continuing omnipotence and amendment power are not maximally omnipotent, for there is one family of things they cannot do, namely, limit themselves, violate their immutable limitation and continuity, bind themselves for the future, and so on. But this should not lead us to think that continuing omnipotence and amendment power can augment themselves. For the only way to do that is (1) to repeal their limitation and become self-embracing, or (2) to become capable of repealing their limitation, which is already to be self-embracing. But these would contradict their continuing character and are impermissible for them. That is why this is the paradox of self-amendment, not merely the paradox of self-limitation. Because continuing omnipotence and amendment power can only affect themselves in ways that neither limit nor augment themselves irrevocably, they are restricted to relatively trivial acts of self-amendment. For example, an AC of continuing omnipotence could rearrange and renumber the articles of the constitution, including itself, without affecting the extent of its power.

While continuing omnipotence cannot become self-embracing, the converse is not true. Self-embracing omnipotence can become continuing omnipotence and may even become "partipotence" or of merely finite power.

Peter Suber - The Paradox of Self-Amendment (1990)

Limitações da Lei (parte I)

Central to many theories of democracy is the view that law is legitimate only when endorsed by the consent of the governed. If this is not to be a hollow slogan, we must have some idea of where to look for the consent, or dissent, of the people to their form of government. One of the most important and indicative manifestations of consent is the people's willingness to use the mechanisms of legal change, especially the supreme power of constitutional amendment. Non-use of the power might reveal a certain contentment with the unamended constitution, and use of it might reveal a certain contentment with the established channels of change and the current form of the constitution. But clearly the inference from use and non-use of the amendment power to consent is only valid if certain conditions are met. For an onerous or unfair procedure could thwart amendment long after desire for change became widespread and intense. An amending procedure that was undemanding for a privileged class might result in frequent use that did not reflect the desires of the larger public. Hence, use and non-use of the amending power will not really indicate consent unless the procedure is fair and neither too difficult nor too easy. But to change the fairness and difficulty of the amending procedure are virtually the only reasons to amend the amendment clause. Hence, self-amendment will almost always affect our ability to assess the people's consent to be governed by their constitution and the people's power to alter legal conditions to meet their consent.

[...]

Our Lockean ears resonate with the proposition that the people are sovereign and that they are bound to obey their laws by contract principles. Yet the paradox of omnipotence arises in another form if the first generation of sovereign people can bind its successors. The adoption of a constitution with an amendment clause [AC] is a revocable act, because the AC permits piecemeal change and wholesale replacement. As long as the establishment of the constitution is revocable by later generations, and the method of amendment is fair, then the first generation is not oppressively binding its successors. But if the method of amendment is not fair, or is too difficult, then the constitution inherited by future generations does oppress and is partially illegitimate. The Lockean consent theory is strengthened as a normative theory of justice, and protected from the paradox of omnipotence, if we insist that the legitimacy of law requires the continuing consent of the governed, not just the consent of the founding generation. [nt.11,pg.379]

Peter Suber - The Paradox of Self-Amendment (1990)

Evidências

Prioridades

O direito à propriedade é visto por John Locke como o direito natural ao seu uso e à sua defesa contra qualquer interferência imoral ou ilegal, sendo modernamente interpretada como uma liberdade negativa(*). Isto implica a existência de uma estrutura que legisle, regule e resolva conflitos relacionados, sendo legitimada, como David Hume argumentou, pela defesa deste importante direito natural. Mas o direito à propriedade actual inclui também a transferência da propriedade para terceiros. Este direito conexo, socialmente relevante, não se encaixa no domínio da não-interferência mas do privilégio, devendo ser, por isso, interpretado como liberdade positiva. A remoção deste privilégio aproximar-nos-ia da antiga noção da terra enquanto domínio público, onde cada pessoa ou família possuía um direito igualitário a uma sua porção e ao fruto do seu trabalho (muito perto, ironicamente, do slogan “a terra a quem a trabalha”). A referida estrutura, legitimada pela responsabilidade de fazer respeitar o direito natural à propriedade, ao aceitar e gerir transferências de propriedade está a aplicar o seu poder coercivo para lá do domínio natural, minando, assim, a sua própria legitimidade. Esta dificuldade é um argumento contra a prioridade máxima e não partilhada do conceito de direito natural, assumida como axioma por muitas das linhagens de pensamento liberal.

(*) Isaiah Berlin propôs a diferenciação entre liberdades negativas, i.e., direitos de não interferência, e liberdades positivas, i.e., direitos a certos benefícios.

Força

As convicções são inimigos mais perigosos da verdade do que as mentiras -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Redistribuição

Vejamos uma citação do livro de Bertrand de Jouvenel, The Ethics of Redistribution (1952), sobre a questão da distribuição de rendimentos:

Our examination of the redistributionist ideal in theory and practice has led us gradually away from our initial contrast between rich and poor toward quite another contrast - that between individuals on the one hand, and the State and minor corporate bodies on the other.

Pure redistribution would merely transfer income from the richer to the poorer. This could conceivably be achieved by a simple reverse-tax or subsidy handed to the recipients of lower incomes from the proceeds of a special tax on higher incomes. But this is not the proce-dure which has prevailed. The State sets up as trustee for the lower-income group and doles out services and benefits. In order to avoid the creation of a "protected class," a discrimination fatal to political equality, the tendency has been to extend the benefits and services upward to all members of society, to cheapen food and rents for the rich as well as the poor, to assist the well-to-do in illness equally with the needy. The cost of such services has soared in England [seguem estatísticas para a Inglaterra de 1950]. In fact, the public authorities, so that they may give to all, must take from all. And from the study made by the E.C.A. mission to the United Kingdom, it appears that lower-income families taken as a whole pay more into the exchequer than they draw from it.

No caso de Portugal actual, o peso recai principalmente na classe média. Vejamos um comentário [1] de Francisco Rocha Antunes à seguinte nota do Ministério das Finanças [2] sobre o IRS de 2006:

6. Quadro 37 – Total das Declarações com IRS Liquidado por Escalões de Rendimento Número de Agregados

O total de agregados com IRS Liquidado corresponde a cerca de 46% do total de agregados com rendimento bruto declarado. Daquele total de agregados, cerca de 28% apresentam rendimentos brutos até 13.500 Euros, enquanto que 70% declararam rendimentos brutos superiores àquele montante mas inferiores a 100.000 Euros.

7. Quadro 40 – IRS por Escalões de Rendimento Bruto Valores Liquidados

Da conjugação dos quadros 31, 37 e 40 retiram-se as seguintes conclusões:

- Para mais de metade dos agregados não é apurado qualquer valor de IRS;

- Para os agregados com IRS Liquidado:

- Com rendimento bruto até 13.500€ (28%), o montante de imposto é de apenas 2,5% do valor total do IRS Liquidado em 2006;

- Com rendimento bruto entre 13.500€ e 100.000€ (70%), o montante de imposto é de 70,4% do valor total do IRS Liquidado em 2006;

- Com rendimento bruto superior a 100.000€, (2%), o montante de imposto é de 27,1% do valor total do IRS Liquidado em 2006.

Eu sei que esta coisa dos números assusta muita gente mas tem a vantagem de ser uma descrição, não uma opinião. Resumindo: de 4.371.037 agregados familiares identificados pelas Finanças em 2006, 2.360.360 não pagaram nada de IRS. Nada é mesmo isso, zero. O Estado arrecadou nesse ano 7.671.000.000 € de IRS. Do total de 2.010.677 agregados que de facto pagaram IRS, 562.990 tiveram um rendimento anual bruto até 13.500€ e pagaram 2,5 % do valor do IRS liquidado, ou seja, 340€ de IRS efectivamente entregue por agregado. No escalão dos agregados que tiveram um rendimento bruto entre 13.500€ e os 100.000€ estavam 1.407.474 famílias que pagaram, em média, 3.836€ de IRS por ano cada uma. Por fim, com um rendimento bruto superior a 100.000€, estiveram 40.213 famílias que pagaram em média, cada uma, 51.695€ de IRS nesse ano.

É por isto que não me parece que a solução seja aumentar os impostos aos que ganham mais. A redistribuição do rendimento já é maciça. [Francisco Rocha Antunes, Junho de 2009]

Mas a verdade é que continua a aumentar. Se compararmos a participação dos agregados familiares a partir de 40k€/ano (i.e., a partir de três mil euros/mês/família de rendimento bruto), em 2005 era de 69.4% do IRS colectado (para 17% dos agregados), em 2006 era 70.8% (18.4% dos agregados), em 2007 era 71.9% (19.1%), em 2008 era 73% (20.4%), subindo para os 74% em 2009 (21.4%). Ficamos à espera dos dados de 2010 e 2011 para verificar se esta tendência se mantém.

Fontes:

IRS 2005-2006

IRS 2006-2008 [cf. quadros 37 & 40]

IRS 2007-2009 [idem]

Ferramentas cognitivas

A Estatística e a Economia são disciplinas muito subvalorizadas no nosso ensino. A Estatística lida com o inevitável da evidência finita e de qualidade variável. Por exemplo, ela diz-nos que a certeza e a impossibilidade são conceitos ideais que podemos apenas aproximar. A Economia ganha a sua razão de ser porque os recursos são finitos e as decisões de os usar acarretam custos e riscos nem sempre evidentes. Por exemplo, ela diz-nos ser impossível erradicar totalmente um problema social pelos limites económicos dos ganhos decrescentes. Este tipo de ideias são importantes na educação de cidadãos aptos a usar os seus direitos económicos e políticos na consolidação de uma sociedade cívica como a nossa.