Artificial Life

The Cover of The Economist this issue:

Here is the lead story.

Here is the more in depth article.

However, I think our required reading is actually an article from April 2000. Its an infamous article by Bill Joy (founder of Sun Microsystems and all around smart guy) titled "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" and it is your required reading this week. Yes, I said it twice. Yes, its that important. Its long so give yourself some time for reading.

I haven't reread all of it, but I seem to recall that Bill is going to take a decidedly negative view of technological convergence. We're playing with powers we don't understand or have full control over. So long as human beings are making decisions, we'll be okay. Once we turn over decision making capabilities to the very entities we create, things get ugly. It is a very compelling, if negative, view of our future.

New favorite website

This goes in the category of People of Walmart and WTFDYHAK?

I give you Redneck Win!

 NSFW
A sample:

From the newest SCOTUS nominee

Elena Kagan's Undergraduate Thesis.

The Logical successor to Zeitgeist

You might remember the Zeitgeist films that went around the Internet a few years back. I hated them because they seriously misrepresented how the US money supply works and argued for a conspiracy theory about how George Bush or some similar person/cabal was moving toward a 1 world currency and global domination and the only way out is SCIENCE!

Anyway. A new viral is making its way around and arguing that the global monetary system is headed toward hyperinflation. It features a lot of the gold-standard talk and Ron Paul and guys with bow ties telling us that printing money is bad. So here you go, watch away.

Two questions I'm trying to figure out right now.

1. Is the economic trouble in Europe the result of their large social states? Their debt to GDP ratios are pretty big and, if you look at the private sector, the market cap of their banks (even in Germany) are larger than the GDP of the whole country. So, part of the reason these countries run high deficits are the social programs, national healthcare, and state funded pension systems. But how much of these deficits are related to those expenditures? Can we trace the rise in public debt to the rapidly aging demographics? Was this possibly a ticking time bomb independent of the larger financial crisis? Lastly, are these troubles a good reason not to develop along socialist lines (whereas the American collapse was a reason not to become too deregulated)?

2. Did I benefit more, as a human being or whatever, because I did not go to an elite college? I've noticed that colleges and universities talk about producing leaders. Indeed, that's pretty much the only thing that they seem interested in creating. But a leader, seems to be the opposite of what a university ought to produce (and I'll argue that they certainly don't receive many leaders). Shouldn't our best schools produce great thinkers? Or maybe a better way to put it (because they certainly do produce great thinkers too) is: shouldn't our best schools place value in creating great thinkers AND great leaders?
     This has been a recurring theme in my life for some time. As Lisa well knows, I often think about the "what if's" of my life. One big "what if" I return to is, what if I had done more in high school? My parents urger me to apply to all the best schools in the country, the top 10 + Jesuit schools like Georgetown + UGA as a safety school (My mom said I was not allowed to go there because it was 13th grade). UGA was the only school I was accepted to. I did not get in, clearly, because I was a "b" student, I pretty much failed at the SAT (1300) and I never took honors or AP classes (except once, by accident or something). Indeed, all I really cared about was Debate Team. My friend Justin and I did pretty well with debate team. We went undefeated in Georgia our senior year - pretty much nobody does that, I mean everybody looses a round here and there but we didn't. I poured my time and effort into debate because I loved that it required me to be able to think critically about the world around me - especially at a time in my life when everyone else wanted me to "get in line" and follow directions. But (a big but, I can not lie, all you other brother can't deny) if I look around at where those kids who did follow directions went, then I start to feel inadequate. I know I'm just as smart as they are (with only a few exceptions) but I did not achieve what they did because I didn't "get in line".
     Here's another example. Lisa (if you don't mind me using you as an example) has always wanted to be a doctor. However, when she went to college, she picked a very difficult major, Biochemistry. She did this because she wanted to have a challenging and ultimately rewarding undergraduate career. Biochemistry requires a much harder course load than the far more popular Biology degree does, and Lisa's grades reflected the more rigorous track. Similarly, she chose to pursue experiences which would enrich her life, but might not pad her resume - being an RA, Mission Trips, Alternative Spring Break etc. All these served to make her the well rounded, intelligent, and strong person I love today. They did not help her when it came time to get into Medical School. Why? She did not spend a summer shadowing a doctor - which we all know means doing administrative tasks. She did not take the several thousand dollar MCAT prep course - so her MCAT reflects her natural abilities as opposed to Kaplan's ability. She spend several years working at the CDC instead of adding classes to her transcript. She did not "get in line". (I do want to point out that she was accepted to Medical school but it was a struggle.)
     It seems like (given my admittedly small sample of friends and loved ones) that the people who go on to the best schools and the top professions are the exact opposite of leaders - they follow a very carefully outlined regimen. Take the best APs, Take the best Prep classes, Have a major that gets you the best GPA not the best education, Take more Prep classes, go to the best schools/professions/socially respected and valued status. Because let's face it, if you aren't a Doctor, Lawyer of CEO, America thinks you're a waste of space (Apologies to Lisa, Laura, and Ryan).
     No, wait, I don't apologize. You guys have followed a very alternative track to get to the schools you are currently (or will soon be) attending. Ryan spent a year in China and studied Philosophy and Religion. By god he should be wallowing in a pool of his own filth under a bridge, not attending Law School at BC. So I have a question for you folks going off to the elite careers (and perhaps an elite school or two): What do you think of the people around you? Are they leaders or thinkers or followers on a carefully prescribed path? Do you think you benefited from your time at the very non-elite UGA or would you rather have gone to a better school?
     Alex, I shouldn't leave you out of this You've been able to see what its like in both worlds. I've noticed some self importance coming from Tech folks I meet, but that could be the UGA v Tech rivalry more then anything else. What do you think of your peers? You are going on to a potentially successful life but your path was a very alternative one. Did you benefit from your experiences outside the trend?

Are economic globalization, political democracy, and the nation-state mutually exclusive?

Here's the article.
A few choice quotes:
"Deep down, the crisis is yet another manifestation of what I call “the political trilemma of the world economy”: economic globalization, political democracy, and the nation-state are mutually irreconcilable. We can have at most two at one time. Democracy is compatible with national sovereignty only if we restrict globalization. If we push for globalization while retaining the nation-state, we must jettison democracy. And if we want democracy along with globalization, we must shove the nation-state aside and strive for greater international governance."

"The United States, for example, created a unified national market once its federal government wrested sufficient political control from individual states. This was far from a smooth process, as the American Civil War amply demonstrates.

The EU’s difficulties stem from the fact that the global financial crisis caught Europe midway through a similar process. European leaders always understood that economic union needs to have a political leg to stand on. Even though some, such as the British, wished to give the Union as little power as possible, the force of the argument was with those who pressed for political integration alongside economic integration. Still, the European political project fell far short of the economic one."

It is kind of like a big game of rock paper scissors. Only two can exist at any given time, the third upsets the balance.

The EU gets its bailout on.

To the tune of 500 billion Euros. Here's the best stuff I've read. If they screw this up, its not going to be pretty. Let's just be happy that they don't have standing armies this time around.

Is Jon Stewart the answer to all the world's problems?

MediaMatters says yes.

Adam Smith, Socialist.

When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
-The Wealth of Nations: Book I, Chapter x