# What is your current, analytical understanding of the world?



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

I don't feel much hope in trying to share my own worldview. But, I just wanted to see if I understand your questions/thoughts at a birds-eye level.


 The world is complex. 
I want to solve problems. 
But I want to solve problems that are possible to solve. 
Prior to solving problems, I want to understand problems. 
But, I want to understand in a broad, systematic, abstract way that transcends the dizzying vastness of details. 
I want to not be overwhelmed or enveloped in that complexity; I would like to make it manageable by finding ways to categorize, organize, and conceptualize. 
I'm not looking for specific solutions or actions so much as a vocabulary or set of concepts that I can draw from and use to describe and orient myself in the world. 
I wish for the world to become like a math problem, where there is a well-defined question that has a specific structure and you can "solve" the question or demonstrate various consequences just by performing straightforward logical operations on that object, which are known to be sound within that structure.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't understand the world I never have. There is always more to learn and I said as much when I was three years old.

Our scientific worldviews have major holes in it at every level. We can study emergence, we can study the dominant forces at every scale and map them in a meta sense, but we will never really understand them. In terms of society, we can do the same thing, try to map the network of relationships between fundamental human needs, resources, information flows at each scale, from within individuals, to families, to larger organisations and spaces such as towns or markets, to nations and the world. Such analysis can show that particular political systems, including markets (which are effectively just chaotic computational systems) in many contexts might not be the most effective in terms of meeting human needs, (eg due to lack of access to resources in the first place, inelasticity of prices or political will of the dominant groups etc.).

But if you want to start somewhere, try understanding yourself.




HAL said:


> Find a need, fill a need. That's pretty much it.
> 
> But to be honest I think most needs are already filled in the trashy, quick-solution, make-life-easier market.


The lack of deep solutions is why there is so much harm and pain in the world in the first place. Some people may be content to peddle a superficial solution, but I'm also guessing that those of us who ask existential questions are not 

Most aspects of modern societies are of such scale and complexity that they are well out of our control, understanding and will take incredible technological development and education to reign in. This is why there are so many problems that seemingly have no good solutions (many of which relate to reducing violence).


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Tendency said:


> What is your current, analytical understanding of the world?


The average group of humans functions like the average human body.


----------



## WhoIsJake (Jun 2, 2015)

The world is too multifaceted to accurately describe, so logic is the closest thing we have to truth. Seriously, live life the way you want to, it doesn't last long.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

You build your own subjective castle.
You interact with what seem to be objective.
You try to make this as pleasant and meaningful as possible.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Since it seems this topic is about global economy and using complex words and sentences I didn't understand...

My current basic economics analytical view is that economy is based on: 
-energy distribution
-social stratification
-manipulating peoples wants/dreams
-calculating the line of where needs can be fulfilled

Lower class needs to battle each other for crumbs, while the higher keeps a healthy rivalry. Game theory everywhere...


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Tendency said:


> World hunger, and wealth inequality are too general for my lifetime so I feel like I need to create meta-solutions.
> 
> 
> What is your current, analytical understanding of the world?


So a meta-solution already exists, it is God in the nature of Christ Jesus. Now, before you scoff, hear me out.

Christianity by definition, fails to achieve the philosophical ideal in terms of observable human behavior. What I mean by this is there are great Christians, who are great examples... but even these Christians get it wrong occasionally. And then if we look at Christians as a whole, they're generally not that much different than anyone else.

The key here is though, to ignore the generalized cultural Christian as white-noise and focus on the core philosophy and evaluate that apart from our ability to consistently observe it in people.

This is the sort of philosophy, I would propose as the meta-solution for all problems. It covers all problems, because it covers God, who covers all things. All topics relate to God, and the creator has an answer for all problems.

So the meta-solution is discipleship of Christianity. Yet here in lies the next set of problems:

1) Christianity in general wants to make converts and not disciples
2) The world hates true Christianity, even other Christians hate true Christianity
3) As soon as unbelieving Christians are lumped into the category of believing Christians, there comes an issue of authority in our call to evangelize the world... why believe one set of Christians over another set of Christians? Then the issue of true Christianity is confused, and to even understand it is an act of God.


Conclusion: God, has all the answers. The macro-solution is simple then, trust God to do what he called you to do. He is the only person who can sort out the mess of the world. If a man attempts to sort it out apart from God, he himself will claim to be God in doing so, and where men proclaim themselves gods, nothing good transpires.


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

Selene said:


> I don't feel much hope in trying to share my own worldview. But, I just wanted to see if I understand your questions/thoughts at a birds-eye level.
> 
> 
> The world is complex.
> ...


You had me up until your last and penultimate bullet points. I especially agree with your antepenultimate bullet point.

The world is a reducible math problem. It is informationally dense and it is on loan from properties of similarly dense data sets that not only process said results. 

So to be clear, information on events, all stochastic from all summated viewpoints, leaves footprints, hierarchically, onto extensible categorizations of data.

But I'm not so sure if my own approach is relevant or even germane on a larger scale... 

What exists are problems that require solutions. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe we cannot currently know we know they do. Or perhaps we think they do when they don't.

Thanks for the cogent layout!


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

I hope you've all enjoyed thinking about this over the past few weeks.


----------



## Capellia (Jun 4, 2015)

My current analytical understanding of the world?

I am going by this definition:

*analysis*
[uh-nal-uh-sis] 

noun, plural analyses [uh-nal-uh-seez]
1. the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements (opposed to synthesis ).
2. this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations: the grammatical analysis of a sentence.
3. a presentation, usually in writing, of the results of this process: The paper published an analysis of the political situation.
4. a philosophical method of exhibiting complex concepts or propositions as compounds or functions of more basic ones.

- Separating things into it's constituent elements and the process of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations: human life. Humans, being created or evolved; learnt things and made use of it. Humans have values and beliefs generated by personal emotions, moral and ethics - no human being alike. Humans have many intelligences, strengths and weaknesses. Humans gave life to science, math and chemistry as a logical tool for understanding/figuring out our own existence as well as developing the human mind and it's intelligences - creating progress. Progress creates differences because humans think things are to be different; different countries, different ethnicities, different cultures, different people etc. Difference creates borders, divisions and limitations as well as knowledge, originality and growth potential. Humans want different things; clothes, food, materials, tools, gadgets, education, rules, laws, politics, religions. Humans created economy and industry; where some will win and some will lose, because people make it so. Humans have "free" will, and with that comes the ability to harness power and wield such power as one sees fit - for "good" and "bad".

Merging all these differences is, in my opinion, impossible; because not one single human is alike and want the same things. Humans generate the data; our lives creates it. Humans are however not binary nor logical, and there will never be one global solution or a solution large and complex enough to change and transform what we oppose, refuse, deny. Humans have emotions as well as a complex mentality which creates humans that are greedy, humans that are ruthless, humans that are unfair, humans that are pure narcissists. Humans exploit that which can be exploited. Can one create logic from an illogical life-form? Humans also have fear, anger and sadness, all contributing to old, current and new challenges. For a transformation that would better the world, humans would have to change and become in sync; where synergy is the main and collective goal. Humans spread like a virus, slowly killing the host - our world. If the majority of the world work for a change, does it then make it right? Or wrong? Neither. It's the personal opinion of a collective of people, without the authority to decide what is right for the minority.

We would need to be more alike or completely alike to create a world where no one is working against subjective and objective progress/change. Data can tell a tale, but it's not the characters in it - diversity and all. Every single humans views the world through a straw, that is all the knowledge we can claim to have. It still remains a subjective view. This is why we can create human-like robots, but without the ability to be what is considered human - values, emotions, beliefs, conscience and all. We can tell the robot that there is such a thing as feelings, or say "ouch" when touched on it's shell, but it doesn't understand what it's like to have those things. It simply knows how to replicate it. Same with successful and unsuccessful psychopaths; they only see themselves as important and will act unafflicted by conscience or empathy - they can function, but all have the ability to become harmful egocentrics. The data is incomplete, but if we choose a statistic as an example: 1 in every 1 000 people is a psychopath. It's probably much more, but I chose a low statistic - the numbers claim as much as 1 in 25 bosses is a psychopath. If we say there is 7 000 000 000 people, that's 70 000 000 pure ego-fueled narcissists that will work tirelessly for their own needs and wishes; sabotaging, working against, destroying for someone else.

Many of these humans "run" the world, they're especially good at it. Offer and present them with data and statistics that would benefit "everyone" and work towards a more synergetic world - they will only entertain and work towards that idea/proposition as long as it's self-serving. They don't even have to be psychopaths, they can simply be unbalanced and mentally unhealthy, greedy, cruel and selfish; having a conscience, but not following it. Humans would need to be more like the other animals that surround us, in order to create a more balanced and harmonious society. Humans would need less attachment to emotions and emotionally based actions/decisions, using logic and reason. I wish numbers and data could be constructed to solve complex human challenges and our general existence; but it would be a solution for some, not all. Humans are capable of virtue, exceptional kindness and altruism. Still, people will multiply, pollute, create irreversible damage to society and the earth itself, be criminal, unjust, unfair, unethical, immoral, because; humans all view the definition and meaning of all these words differently - no matter what the dictionary says. There are humans who are indifferent/apathetic towards doing something and unfortunately, they have a right to be so.

There's not just the economy, there's climate as well. What do we need economy for when we can't live here? We will always struggle with creating a better place for the generations to come. You can create a mathematical solution, but I fear it will only be ideology; something that might work - for a small time. There's also science, which tells us that the sun will burn out, the moon will orbit away from earth creating horrible conditions in nature, the ozone layer will disappear and the sun will harm us - something will eventually kill all of us - if not our selves in a 3rd WW, because some will want what they can't have, all the while trying to take it.

This is my analysis; not how I want for things to be. I think the cost of doing something, outweighs the cost of doing nothing and I will always maintain hope and positivity, working for synergetic change, despite lacking the mental capability to use math to do it as you attempt to. I think that trying to do so is admirable and necessary. As for the "philosophical method of exhibiting complex concepts or propositions as compounds or functions of more basic ones" - not really sure I understand that sentence or if I did that here.

I hope you succeed with your mission! Thank you for a really interesting topic and I hope that my response is sufficient!






Not sure if this movie could be used for the economy crisis as well.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

I m baffled by how the OP's question. I don't know how people can really provide lengthy analysis on such an abstract concept 'World'.

@ OP, unless you narrow the definitions of what you'd like to have analyzed I find it hard to comply. However, I ll do what I can from what's at my disposal.

Answer :

It all depends on how you analyze generally. I tend to use models & systems which need to be be well defined and understood.
Also I think it depends on the purpose of your analysis. Do you want it to provide you some applicable framework to work with? Do you want to add nuance to your understanding? I d be glad to help with the latter but the former is kind of too Te-driven for me to do it properly.

For example, economy has 2 major branches micro & macro-economy. The former focuses on the individuals/choices the latter on aggregated notions. I like this dichotomy. But there are many other dichotomies in many other fields which need to be studied if you want to have the big picture.

ENTPs, we analyze the world all the time! So coming with an answer to that is tough and not realistic imo, I know that I will never know enough.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Well if you believe the world(including the economy) is a reducible math problem, then don't waste time talking about it, solve it. If you can single-handedly understand and master the dynamics of international macro-economics then become a macro-trader and become the next George Soros and sit around counting your money. 

Otherwise, if your "bag" is trying to sort through the noise and data of modern society then become a Data Scientist, Analyst, Statistician, or Economist. I know of at least a few people who spent much of their early life getting a grip on their world by studying Economics(formally or informally) before becoming successful entrepreneurs in niches they identified. Perhaps that could be a satisfying path for yourself. 

P.S. If you end up in a job where you are paid to communicate your findings, lose the unnecessary jargon and weasel words. Nobody is impressed that you like to read a dictionary for a hobby(nothing personal, just an observation.) You should mull over whether your aim in using esoteric words is _really_ to communicate clearly or if it is just reinforcement for your ego.


----------



## Sanskrit (Feb 6, 2011)

World: Better step back, watch it from distance and try to not get too involved since it is all going to shit.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

I just feel like this world is mine for the taking, so watch me take it.

I would say very easily conquered, no real direction or meaningful progress towards anything substantial. A lot of lost people. Bad leadership. Apathy amongst people. 

Even though as we progress it gets better, I'm still pretty disappointed over all.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

I have to admit I ended up tailoring my post towards the OP him/herself, not towards the question. It is an interesting question which could be attacked from a number of angles, but I'll give it a try...

Globalization

We are globalizing slowly, in a patchwork fashion. It is bringing greater trade and thus wealth but it is imperfect and a lot of unintended side-effects are occurring(international investors jacking up the prices in certain real-estate markets), as well as major hiccups(the on-going Euro-zone saga.) The biggest obstacle for a truly globalized economy and governmental system is and will forever be the nation states themselves. 

I find it hard to imagine a(democratic) world where politicians ignore the selfish complaints of their constituents in favor of completely free trade. The perfect example is agricultural subsidies: the developed world showers their farmers in money, artificially supporting their supply which in turn makes these commodities priced too low for developing world farmers to earn a living and help to kick start their economies. We will nonetheless see increasing global trade and an increasingly intertwined globe over time, regardless of whether or not its integration ever becomes complete.

The Emerging Markets

As these economies(BRIC & more) grow richer, so too will their political confidence and involvement. China and India of course will be the most dominant in developing broader spheres of influence. China will continue to mature into it's role as a superpower and it's tendrils will continue to spread all over the globe. One of the positive externalities of this will be their investments in Africa catalyzing growth there. The worst negative externality will be increasing aggressive behavior in their neighbourhood and anti-social displays of force. Each emerging nation will really rise and fall depending on their governance, but they will become more active as nations internationally.

Tech.

Green tech. and associated industries will continue to mature at the same time as oil production expands with new technologies in that sector. Eventually however we will reach a tipping point where renewable energy is cheaper than oil(in some ways we are already past this point.) It will be chaotic and uneven at first, but eventually the vast majority of our energy will come from renewables. Strange opportunities might arise as our energy production becomes nearly free. It's honestly hard to say what could happen then... utopia? Unrivaled levels of consumption?

Artificial intelligence and thus robotics will make rapid advances with machine learning in particular and we will have to make some big decisions on what direction we allow them to go. If unregulated we could see a lot of job loss and perhaps harmful AI. It is highly likely we will see self-aware AI within the next 50 years.

Transportation will improve, with some new generation(hyperloops perhaps) changing the game entirely. It is a long ways off though. Our resident crazy billionaires will continue playing with their space toys and mars bases and we might actually get some tangible benefits on earth at some point(satellite wi-fi or something.) Medicine will continue to make huge advances and we might see 3d-printed or lab-grown organs being the main source of transplants at some point. Prosthetics will get amazing.

In general(not future-casting)

We are 7 billion naked orangutans living on a rock in space. We value ourselves and our subjective conscious experience above all. Although we hide it behind countless layers of formality and bullshit, we for the most part do whatever turns our cranks, all in the name of "progress." Beyond baseline survival we fill our lives and minds with endless constructions and aspirations. These have inherent value and are mostly preferable to the instinctual lives of animals, but this value does not make them any less constructed. In aggregate our actions form a remarkably complex and chaotic system which we still have immense difficulty modelling and predicting accurately. 

We have lived within fairly consistent boundaries for a long time(<100 year life-span, terrestrial living) but these might change within the next few centuries. In many ways we have completely mastered our environment, and yet we continue to plug away and do our thing. Sometimes we're great, sometimes we're horrible, mostly we're just mundane. Yet regardless, we are somehow always interesting from this orangutans viewpoint.

That got philosophical. Regardless, it was fun. I regret nothing!


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

Capellia said:


> My current analytical understanding of the world?
> 
> Merging all these differences is, in my opinion, impossible; because not one single human is alike and want the same things. Humans generate the data; our lives creates it. Humans are however not binary nor logical, and there will never be one global solution or a solution large and complex enough to change and transform what we oppose, refuse, deny. Humans have emotions as well as a complex mentality which creates humans that are greedy, humans that are ruthless, humans that are unfair, humans that are pure narcissists. Humans exploit that which can be exploited. *Can one create logic from an illogical life-form?* Humans also have fear, anger and sadness, all contributing to old, current and new challenges. For a transformation that would better the world, humans would have to change and become in sync; where synergy is the main and collective goal. Humans spread like a virus, slowly killing the host - our world. *If the majority of the world work for a change, does it then make it right?* Or wrong? Neither. *It's the personal opinion of a collective of people, without the authority to decide what is right for the minority.*


Yes. The materials that make a circuit board are illogical until they reach the assembly line. Humans will not kill this world. They will kill their chance at any long termed sustainability that deep thinking about terrains might have served an amiable substrate to.

True—and I wholeheartedly agree—but, does it matter?



Capellia said:


> We would need to be more alike or completely alike to create a world where no one is working against subjective and objective progress/change.* Data can tell a tale, but it's not the characters in it* - diversity and all. Every single humans views the world through a straw, that is all the knowledge we can claim to have. It still remains a subjective view. This is why we can create human-like robots, but without the ability to be what is considered human - values, emotions, beliefs, conscience and all. We can tell the robot that there is such a thing as feelings, or say "ouch" when touched on it's shell, but it doesn't understand what it's like to have those things. It simply knows how to replicate it. Same with successful and unsuccessful psychopaths; they only see themselves as important and will act unafflicted by conscience or empathy - they can function, but all have the ability to become harmful egocentrics. The data is incomplete, but if we choose a statistic as an example: 1 in every 1 000 people is a psychopath. It's probably much more, but I chose a low statistic - the numbers claim as much as 1 in 25 bosses is a psychopath. If we say there is 7 000 000 000 people, that's 70 000 000 pure ego-fueled narcissists that will work tirelessly for their own needs and wishes; sabotaging, working against, destroying for someone else.



But don't you see? Data IS the characters. You and I are nothing more than overgrown genetic material expressed by "epigenetic conditions"...glorified sack of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen and the rest of the chemicals found in your local planetary bog. But isn't it fascinating that just two atoms can create so much information? We think about electric fields, quantum fields, the chemistry of atomic forces, the list goes on....this is the very reduction...this is that....dare I say...."characterization" on an abstract yet logical level. Stats can only tell you so much. And it is very dangerous under unsupervised conditions.

On psychopathy and amygdalic dysfunction: True on a log normal distributive scale, but we can never be sure what causes what in psychology. Because the genome contains neurotransmitters, it is unlikely that humanity can distance itself from the subjective vs. advancing objective measures. I get hungry whilst developing software. I get angry because of the lack of that food and blood sugar levels. It is a reaction that I can process out of my thinking patterns—a very familiar and vestigial one at that—or I can simply get food, not re write my neural destiny and develop my software...something about the balance and realization of time. This gives rise to something imaginative you might term "values."..... Not that I'm a psychopath!



Capellia said:


> Many of these humans "run" the world, they're especially good at it. Offer and present them with data and statistics that would benefit "everyone" and work towards a more synergetic world - they will only entertain and work towards that idea/proposition as long as it's self-serving. They don't even have to be psychopaths, they can simply be unbalanced and mentally unhealthy, greedy, cruel and selfish; having a conscience, but not following it. Humans would need to be more like the other animals that surround us, in order to create a more balanced and harmonious society. Humans would need less attachment to emotions and emotionally based actions/decisions, using logic and reason. *I wish numbers and data could be constructed to solve complex human challenges and our general existence*; but it would be a solution for some, not all. Humans are capable of virtue, exceptional kindness and altruism. Still, people will *multiply, pollute, create irreversible damage to society and the earth itself, be criminal, unjust, unfair, unethical, immoral*, because; humans all view the definition and meaning of all these words differently - no matter what the dictionary says. There are humans who are indifferent/apathetic towards doing something and unfortunately, they have a right to be so.


Oh??

1). Multiply - *Differential Equations of growth*
2). Pollute - Parts per million, trillion, gazillion (in *stoichiometry*) for the industrial design of "smarter" emissions
3). Create irreversible damage - *Partial Differential equations* of what it would take to achieve equilibrium in specific domains.
4). Criminal, unjust, unfair, unethical, immoral - *Game Theory*.

They don't claim to solve these problems, but they are the closest damned thing that I've ever seen as an attempt if there were one. And these methods are rigorous—rightfully so due to the nature of where they are directed..



Capellia;19660978
There's not just the economy said:


> What do we need economy for when we can't live here?[/B] We will always struggle with creating a better place for the generations to come. You can create a mathematical solution, but I fear it will only be ideology; something that might work - for a small time. There's also science, which tells us that the sun will burn out, the moon will orbit away from earth creating horrible conditions in nature, the ozone layer will disappear and the sun will harm us - something will eventually kill all of us - if not our selves in a 3rd WW, because some will want what they can't have, all the while trying to take it.


Let's put it this way. In order that the body gets anything done...movement, thinking, digestion, masticating, mastur—you get the point—what do all of these actions require? ATP. As "currency" there is an energy trade off on the cellular level that wholly affects the entire system. No matter how artificial this currency is, such a thing is required as long as there is a wide spread distribution of said currency that fuels the global need.

This is precisely a domain of a meta solution. A partial shift in perspective of what is valuable, leaving the baseline currency intact until there is a major shift that forces a liftoff from the baseline. Imagine a world where cars are run purely on the electric field?

OR imagine the ability for all of our cells to run purely on electricity instead of "ATP currency?"



Capellia;19660978
This is my analysis; not how I want for things to be. I think the cost of doing something said:


> zORv8wwiadQ[/MEDIA]
> 
> Not sure if this movie could be used for the economy crisis as well.


I saw that video many years ago and I lost it. Thank you so much for finding it for me again. My YT account was deleted and with it, it went too!

Good thoughts.


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

WikiRevolution said:


> I m baffled by how the OP's question. I don't know how people can really provide lengthy analysis on such an abstract concept 'World'.
> 
> @ OP, unless you narrow the definitions of what you'd like to have analyzed I find it hard to comply. However, I ll do what I can from what's at my disposal.
> 
> ...



That's the point. You use a deep understanding about how to reference concepts. If I know a lot about logic gates, then I understand circuitry. At what point does this translate over neural networks, algorithms that support them, and data structures? Well, we know that as we perceive images, the brain must constantly *iterate* before it has a good picture to be registered in the Occipital. Is this not an algorithm? Are we not getting closer to the whiff of the basic building block in consciousness?

The key here is that yes, you cannot know everything—infinities upon infinities in the world of permutations...but what if we could derive insights that lend to greater insights that were not previously imaginable? Well guess what, it's happening with Quantum based computers.

Also, your personality type has little to do with your analysis and rationality.


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

Father of Dragons said:


> P.S. If you end up in a job where you are paid to communicate your findings, lose the unnecessary jargon and weasel words. *Nobody is impressed* that you like to read a dictionary for a hobby(nothing personal, just an observation.) *You should mull over whether your aim in using esoteric words is really to communicate clearly or if it is just reinforcement for your ego.*


Let's address the negligible first so that we don't have to waste our time with repeat, over emotional effusions like this.

And so, man/woman up, tell your insecurities that: No means no.




Father of Dragons said:


> Well if you believe the world(including the economy) is a reducible math problem, then don't waste time talking about it, solve it. If you can single-handedly understand and master the dynamics of international macro-economics then become a macro-trader and become the next George Soros and sit around counting your money.
> 
> Otherwise, *if your "bag" is trying to sort through the noise and data of modern society* then become a Data Scientist, Analyst, Statistician, or Economist. I know of at least a few people who spent much of their early life getting a grip on their world by *studying Economics(formally or informally)* before becoming *successful entrepreneurs* in niches they identified. *Perhaps that could be a satisfying path for yourself. *


It is my bag. Precisely so. But I will do so from the comfort of my own futon. 

And thank you for the guided insights from your own heuristic/perception.


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

Sanskrit said:


> World: Better step back, watch it from distance and try to not get too involved since it is all going to shit.


This is almost zen!


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

Father of Dragons said:


> I have to admit I ended up tailoring my post towards the OP him/herself, not towards the question. It is an interesting question which could be attacked from a number of angles, but I'll give it a try...
> 
> Globalization
> 
> ...


Understandable.



Father of Dragons said:


> The Emerging Markets
> 
> As these economies(BRIC & more) grow richer, so too will their political confidence and involvement. *China and India of course will be the most dominant* in developing broader spheres of influence. China will continue to mature into it's role as a superpower and it's tendrils will continue to spread all over the globe. One of the positive externalities of this will be their investments in Africa catalyzing growth there. The worst negative externality will be increasing aggressive behavior in their neighbourhood and anti-social displays of force. Each emerging nation will really rise and fall depending on their governance, but they will become more active as nations internationally.


Good insight—you see because as the populations grows, there is more and more of a dynamism to expansion of premium finance companies, health insurance, and gentrification. What we will witness over the next 10 - 15 years is land that is transformed to accommodate these interested, perhaps wealthy, masses that are willing to purchase more real estate and invest in said companies. 



Father of Dragons said:


> Tech.
> 
> Green tech. and associated industries will continue to mature at the same time as oil production expands with new technologies in that sector. Eventually however we will reach a tipping point where renewable energy is cheaper than oil(in some ways we are already past this point.) It will be chaotic and uneven at first, but eventually the vast majority of our energy will come from renewables. Strange opportunities might arise as our energy production becomes nearly free. It's honestly hard to say what could happen then... utopia? Unrivaled levels of consumption?
> 
> ...


A little something on job loss...it's already happening. But maybe it should happen. It should phase out that of which is inefficient with robotics production lines creating new jobs until that itself is automated. We have not standardized organ growth in lab, but we have grown hearts and are enroute to attempting full body transplant in less than 3 years.




Father of Dragons said:


> In general(not future-casting)
> 
> We are 7 billion naked orangutans living on a rock in space. We value ourselves and our subjective conscious experience above all. Although we hide it behind countless layers of formality and bullshit, we for the most part do whatever turns our cranks, all in the name of "progress." Beyond baseline survival we fill our lives and minds with endless constructions and aspirations. These have inherent value and are mostly preferable to the instinctual lives of animals, but this value does not make them any less constructed. In aggregate our actions form a remarkably complex and chaotic system which we still have immense difficulty modelling and predicting accurately.
> 
> We have lived within fairly consistent boundaries for a long time(<100 year life-span, terrestrial living) but these might change within the next few centuries. In many ways we have completely mastered our environment, and yet we continue to plug away and do our thing. Sometimes we're great, sometimes we're horrible, mostly we're just mundane. Yet regardless, we are somehow always interesting from this orangutans viewpoint.





Father of Dragons;19720290
That got philosophical. [B said:


> Regardless, it was fun. I regret nothing![/B]


As it should. Good substance!


----------

