Sci-Tech: Globalization will end because of technology, not politics!

This is a science and technology posting… but we’ll start by posing a political question and then answering another... then using technology to answer a big one, about the future of globalization.

1) Candidates, where do you stand on science?  56 scientific organizations representing 10 million scientists and engineers, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), have posed a list of twenty science-based questions, offered up to Clinton, Trump, Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. They have until Sept. 6 to send in their answers.

"Most of the questions are entirely unsurprising (and sadly still controversial): AAAS asks how candidates plan to address climate change and growing global energy needs. Some questions are new this year. “There is a growing opioid problem in the United States, with tragic costs to lives, families and society. How would your administration enlist researchers, medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies in addressing this issue?” 

Other new issues included immigration, mental health and biodiversity." Intriguing stuff... And short of nuclear war, can you think of anything more important? Yet more politically neglected?

At this even longer have been the folks at sciencedebate.org - (led by Shawn Otto, author of The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It), who have been relentless in trying to get candidates to admit we live in an era of science and that facts matter at least 10% as much as polemics. 

I'd go farther. I'd demand that every member of Congress name his or her science adviser.  If they name a fool or a shill, that would hurt them.  If they name someone eminent from their district, then that eminent person might either sway the politician... or embarrass him.

2) Some of you ask why I pal with John Mauldin, a conservative economist, government-skeptic and dedicated (though less-so with Trump) Republican. What? Other than the fact John’s a terrific guy? Also, his insights and critiques are everything that a sane American conservatism could bring to our national conversation… pro-science & diversity & tolerance-friendly, pragmatic, pro-small-business… everything that today’s GOP is diametrically opposed-to. We need that conservatism back at the negotiating table! Though it will only emerge, phoenix-like, from the ashes of a monstrous Confederacy-madness that Rupert Murdoch raised with his 30 year satanic rites.

How does that relate to today's topic? Here’s a link to one of the best articles on globalization I ever read, by John’s partner Patrick Watson. It explains how globalization got its start with four major technologies… 

...and why four more will bring about its end, returning us to an era of local production, when fleets of ships and pipelines and trucks will no longer be the lifeblood of the world economy.

And yes, they point out that while some have lost, due to globalization, most of the people of this planet have benefited spectacularly. And those (of you) who oppose globalization strictly as a convenient excuse for simplistic protectionism are thus reflexively committing horrific racism.

Those eight technologies changed - or will change - the world. But what Patrick and John leave out is the topmost driver of 70 years of globalization. Pax Americana. Not only did the planetary order set up by George Marshall and Harry Truman protect the world from major war for an entire human lifespan, allowing 90% of nations to spend amounts on arms and armies that were minuscule compared to any past generation…

…but the trade networks they erected were diametrically different than the mercantilist regimes erected by Pax Romana, Pax Sinica, Pax Brittanica and every other empire. Pax Americana has been ANTI-mercantilist, allowing, even fostering, the development of local industries, all over the globe. This simple measure is the one innovation that uplifted first Europe and Japan, then Korea, Taiwan and so on… till now the American consumer is raising-up masses in both China and India at the same time. It is the chief reason that 3/4 of the world's children bring school books back to homes with electric lights, toilets, running water and a modestly well-stocked fridge.

It is the prodigious American accomplishment that historians of the future will most prominently note, far above measly moon landings. And we did it by buying several trillion dollars worth of crap we never needed. Oh, irony.

== End globalization right! ==

But yes, it's time to move on from carbon-spewing globalized trade! For example: 
      "General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt says that “wage arbitrage” is over. Robots do not care where you install them. They cost about the same and work at equal speed no matter where they are. Robotics will greatly reduce the incentive to make goods far from the end user simply to save on labor costs. The new incentive will be to produce in proximity to your customer. This will let you deliver faster and offer greater customization."

Local production, robotics, local food, these trends will build, bringing benefits and troubles of their own. But all the tech trends seem to point in this direction. And about time, because all those cargo planes and cargo ships are helping to cook us!

Given the nature of their newsletter audience, John and Patrick only glancingly nod at the top reason to reduce our use of fossil fuels. 
(Psst... it's pollution-driven climate change!) 
But I won’t begrudge them the gentleness of their ministry to the near-terminally delusional.  At least they are trying.

Oh… before we shift topics... here’s just a couple of science-y news items showing how we will de-globalize.

Vertical farming stacks crops on top of one another in a climate controlled, indoor facility, using aeroponic technology, which involves misting the roots of the plants, using an astonishing 95% less water. The plants are grown organically, in a reusable cloth made from recycled plastic, so no soil is needed. What’s cool is that the technology is mature… it actually works on pragmatic and commercial scales, at least for table greens. Doubtless there are some crops that won’t apply.  But this — plus tissue-culture meat — could loosen humanity’s death grip on the planet’s arable land, just in the nick of time, and make our cities much more sustainable. 

And a Tesla car drives owner to hospital after he suffers pulmonary embolism.

A day after Elon says the "era is coming faster than we think."

== Science in trouble? ==

This lengthy and illuminating article -- The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists – began when the authors sent scientists a survey asking this simple question: If you could change one thing about how science works today, what would it be and why?  

According to one researcher the selection pressures in science have favored less-than-ideal research: "As long as things like publication quantity, and publishing flashy results in fancy journals are incentivized, and people who can do that are rewarded … they’ll be successful, and pass on their successful methods to others." 

The article offers in-depth reflection on a number of problems ranging from peer review to publish-or-perish to funding misallocation and lack of incentives for replicating or disproving earlier works.  Note also a recurring theme that I have promoted for decades, that of transparency – a concept and a methodology that, if not invented by science, certainly has been promoted in this civilization foremost by science.

Alas, the article also has its own problem – a complete lack of big picture perspective.

Dig it, every single one of the listed problems was with us in the past! In most cases far worse than today, with fewer corrective measures in place.  Indeed, the gripes – and proposed solutions – presented in this article are manifestations of a very strong, ongoing, self-critical, self-improvement campaign within science. In large part, we are not witnessing a deterioration of scientific behavior but rather a steady rising of awareness and standards. 

In other words, Criticism is the vitally important Only Antidote to Error.  But not all mea culpas come from realization of turpitude. Reflective criticism can also be a declaration: “let’s get even better!”

It is no surprise that fallible human beings have trouble measuring up to the most honesty-driven pursuit in the history of our inherently delusional species. What stands out is that millions want to try. The very standards by which scientists find their own field lacking are standards brought into our civilization by science.

Of course the background for all of this is a drumbeat War on Science, being waged by bits and corners of one end of the political spectrum… and every corner of the other end. Science and scientists have earned the respect they have from most, sane citizens. Beyond any reasonable doubt, fanatics are hurling much of their calumny out of jealousy.

Indeed, that is why critical self-examinations like this one merit both our serious attention and heed to historical perspective. Clearly, scientists are faulty humans and have a long way to go, like the rest of us.  They are merely (on average) the best and smartest and most knowing and most honest of all professions.

== A science roundup of wowzer amazements ==

The latest – cool-looking – attempt at a flying car. 

A new kind of luminescent cement will be able to absorb enough solar energy to then remain illuminated for up to 12 hours at night, even when the day is cloudy. Brilliant. 

This 250 ton monster digger scours the ocean depths, looking for mineral wealth - gold, copper, nickel, zinc and cobalt. 

A fascinating story of how Oregon scientists discovered the first new blue pigment in 200 years, both brilliant and extremely durable.  

Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal has developed an automotive steel sheet that is 30% lighter and 25% stronger than the toughest high-tensile steel now on the market, hoping to help carmakers build more fuel-efficient, safer vehicles.

Using neuro-imaging data, Carnegie Mellon University researchers have identified four distinct stages of math problem solving -- encoding, planning, solving, and responding. Although the study focused specifically on mathematical problem solving, the method holds promise for broader application.

Led by Richard Carson, a Yale-led team of researchers has developed a way to measure the density of synapses in the brain using a PET (positron emission tomography) scan. They invented a radioligand (a radioactive tracer that, when injected into the body, binds to a type of protein and “lights up” during a PET scan) that is uniquely present in all 100 trillion or so synapses in the brain.  With this noninvasive method, researchers may now be able to follow the progression of many brain disorders by measuring changes in synaptic density over time or assess how well pharmaceuticals slow the loss of neurons.

The Left's Loony Obsession vs "Globalization" - part II

Actually, I am going to deliver a one-two punch to the left and a kick to the right.

I have to. There are too many kicks stored up. I have to spread em out.

First, proof that conscience does not always translate into common sense. It is all well and good to sympathize with Third World poor folks and with a planet being raped by uncaring commerce. (My eco-credentials are so far beyond reproach, it's laughable.)

But it's quite another to explore what steps would actually help poor people around the world and the environment. And here, the left is completely wretched. Must we be stuck between socialist fanatics and pro-aristocrat market fanatics?

Let's take apart one of these sides. (Continued from part I)

-

The 'anti-globalization movement' is currently a transfixing focus for what used to be called the Activist Left. Young people follow world leaders around, creating urban theater neat World Bank & other meetings, decrying abuse of the environment, of labor, of children, etc.

Don't get me wrong. These concerns are genuine and laudable and based on real excesses that, if left unchecked, would wreak profound injustice and pain upon generations. By all means, shine light on scandals in Addidas factories! Force revelation of the ownership paths of supertankers! Document deforestation and track those conflict diamonds.

But the irony and - yes - hypocrisy that's generated by dogmatism can be profound. These activists seem incapable of noticing one paramount fact. That both labor and environmental abuse were addressed in their home (western) countries by the very last method they think people in the Third World capable of using -- politics and law.

They want to protect these people and lands by cutting off links between those lands and major international corporations... presumably so those "rapacious" corporations will stop exploiting both workers and the environment. But this approach has no track record of accomplishing a single thing, either for the poor or for the Earth.

How did labor, children, and the environment all benefit in the activists' own homelands? In fact, these things benefied from INCREASES in interconnectivity, along with development of political and legal structure.

In other words, their reflex revulsion toward 'globalization' is ill-considered. The decreases in interconnectivity and structure that they demand can only succor local bullies and oligarchies and kleptocracies that currently are far worse enemies of the environment, labor and children! At least the global conglomerates, when they move into a country, try to foster actual civil law, if only for their own protection and for predictability.

And, as shown in the recent works of Hernando de Soto, it is LAW, even imperfect, but predictable, systematic, that (so long as it is not corrupt) ultimately favors the poor even more than the rich, by allowing them to keep and leverage their small but growing earnings. Recent studies of micro-lending have shown that Mom & Pop mini-capitalists are the most powerful force for economic development, far more potent than any multinational, per capita. Give them jobs and a little capital... and above all civil law... and things really happen.

(I emphasize that the true enemy of all this is corruption, generally a tool of local aristocracies that fosters kleptocracy. Law, in this case, must be at least evenhanded in PROCESS, even if it is unfair on paper.)

Ask poor people in, say, Sumatra etc whether they would prefer being temporarily exploited by Addidas (while saving real wages to put in real banks and using cash to buy their kids schoolbooks, so those kids can become lawyers and organize unions or sue Addidas....) Or whether they would prefer to continue under abusive feudal landlords, slaving and sharecropping and accumulating nothing, not even title to the home they built. At least under globalization, electricity and water arrive, sewers get dug. And schools. And yes, none of this guarantees democracy. That's why I urge everybody to also support Project Witness!

But when uncorrupt and reliable civil law allows people to accumulate savings and educate their kids, major oppression cannot last more than another generation. It has a built in time limit.

So no, the Left is simply not making any sense. It is not even helping a little bit. Because by spouting nonsense versions of reform economics, they only encourage people to turn away from more pragmatic forms of liberalism and listen, instead, to nonsense exaggerations on the right...

...such as the equally loony notion that markets are self-regulating. And aristocracies don't conspire to cheat and exploit unfair advantages. Or that the rich are somehow friendlier to genuine markets because they are rich. (The diametric opposite to what is shown by history.)

But stop. For the kick to the right, let me turn to our own Stefan, who provided the following excerpt from a really rich rant, You can find the whole thing at http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/08/president-and-intelligent-design.html

I don't go as far as this ranter. Indeed, by September I hope to start my episodic essay on religion and you may all be VERY surprised!

Still, this choice rant really is worth the price of admission. Enjoy.

"Here you are, Tsui or Sanjay, looking at a new century. A century in which the exponential curve of technology's rise becomes a sheer cliff. In which only the most intellectually nimble countries, best able to master new information technologies and couple them with manufacturing bases with high levels of technical training, will survive.

"And you're looking at that big bastard across the ocean, the US of A. First to build the Bomb. First to master the secrets of the atom. First to build the semiconductor. First and only tribe of humans who actually put men on the GODDAM MOON, to have stepped on another rock in space. Decoders of the human genome, the VERY BOOK OF LIFE !!! How will we ever stop --

"Wow, they forfeit. Cool.

"Even if your kids aren't directly taught ID or aren't in one of the new Bible Class districts, the overarching cultural damage has already been done. Through this group of RadicalRighties' constant rhetoric, they consistently strip away the idea that there is indeed a rigorous scientific process through which certain non-negotiable physical truths can be ascertained. They have suffused the county with an intellectual laziness and a terrifying narcissism. Opinion has been enshrined as superior to fact. No longer need a person take into account the way the world works when forming their worldview -- they can instead hunt down "facts" and "theories" which support their own comfort zone, and what's worse, we can NO LONGER CALL BULLSHIT. Because if our leaders -- pardon me, your leaders -- don't call bullshit, who will? They have undermined the very process by which we know WHEN to call bullshit!"

Har! That is, it would be funny... if I weren't crying....

==Continue to Part III

Another Leftward-aimed Zinger... on "Globalization"...

I told you all that I would spend a little while aiming my ire leftward, helping prove that my "Modernism and its enemies" riff is not just a liberal rant in disguise. True, I feel our civilization is under desperate danger at present from one particular direction. But let me maintain momentum and shine light on the other locus of romantic anti modernism, for a little longer.

I want to talk about the silly obsession of many leftists toward the word "globalization". A three-parter.

-

A few years ago I gave a dinner speech for the World Federalist Society (led by former independent Presidential candidate John Anderson). And before you call me a sappy "one-worlder" let me add that I also gave a keynote at a national convention of the Libertarian Party! (see: Orcs, Essences and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism) So go ahead, try to cram my politics into a category!

At the WFS gathering, I pointed out a few factors they really ought to note, before pushing for new styles of international governance.

1. Antipathy toward increasing world structure or 'government' has different sources, depending on where you look.

Dictators and oligarchs see it as a threat to their local power.

Small nations see it as a vehicle for hegemony by the US et. al.

Major corporations see it as likely to become yet another taxing authority.

Western political classes see it as arising out of the UN, and thus becoming an impotent talking society in which action becomes impossible and 3rd world perceptions dominate.

Americans almost instinctively perceive it as a potentially dangerous accumulation of centralized power.

The thing I most often focus on is the last of these. (Citizen empowerment is my fetish. See:
http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowerment.htm )

Indeed, my own son, at age six, expressed a deep worry about even the notion of a World Government, since "There wouldn't be anywhere else to run away to, if it turned bad." (Clever boy!)

I think it's very important to peer closely at the average voters and citizens in the West - especially the US - since they will ultimately decide whether this issue becomes a front-burner item. In dozens of talks and speeches, I have found that most people I meet express a set of shared values -- whether republican or democrat etc -- a vast majority of them declaring high fealty to:

(a) suspicion of authority
(b) individualism
(c) accountability
(d) tolerance (well, mostly).

Their principal difference is nearly always WHICH real or potential center of authority they worry about. But when it comes to this particular topic, nearly all deeply worry about internationalization of authority.

The left worries about this internationalization of power falling into the hands of their particular bogeymen: imperialists, aristocrats and faceless-rapacious corporations. The right worries about socialists and UN bureaucrats and snotty "consensus scientific" or academic elites.

And yet, can you honestly try top project your mind a thousand years into the future and not picture some kind of government that spans the globe and/or Solar System, at least at some level? Okay then, how about 500 years from now? 200? Can you honestly say our present status quo will survive all consolidating pressures, in the face of crisis after crisis, even for another few decades?

Elsewhere I talk about Whatever Comes Next ... or WCN. An acronym chosen deliberately to avoid hot button words like "world government". Surely SOMETHING will come next, eh?

Or will Pax Americana last forever, as our mad neocons contend?

(Hint: their behavior is actively shortening Pax Americana's reign. Indeed, that is a chief complaint against these bright fools. At present I see no possible WCN on the immediate horizon that can claim to be better than PA has been, for 60 years of relative peace and growth. But the neocons will end it all, the way Alcibiades helped end the reign of flawed-but-noble Athens.)

In any event, I have only touched upon a HUGE topic, pointing out that the left and right each have reasons to loathe and prevent discussion and planning and argument aimed at examining the process, and ensuring that it will be done WELL.

What are the attributes that we should be aiming for, in world law? And which should be avoided?

Here's a scary thing. The one thing that both left and right never discuss is giving the individual standing before international legal bodies. The right wants corporations protected. The left wants NGOs to be empowered to protect the helpless. Nobody is talking about letting you and me stand up for ourselves! Letting individuals rambunctiously take center stage and have our day in court... even though that's what worked best, in the nation states of the 20th century.

...more on this soon...