Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

Drive – Daniel H. Pink

From Amazon:

the secret to high performance and satisfaction in today’s world is the deeply human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and our world.

Drawing on four decades of scientific research on human motivation, Pink exposes the mismatch between what science knows and what business does—and how that affects every aspect of our lives. He demonstrates that while the old-fashioned carrot-and-stick approach worked successfully in the 20th century, it’s precisely the wrong way to motivate people for today’s challenges. In Drive, he reveals the three elements of true motivation:

*Autonomy—the desire to direct our own lives
*Mastery—the urge to get better and better at something that matters
*Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves

This strikes me as almost exactly right. To enjoy my job, I need to be intellectually challenged and improving my skills every day (although those are two slightly different things, both important but for me the first is more important), and I need to feel that my job has some larger social and environmental mission. And even when I have those two things, there are days when I resent the feeling that my time does not belong to me. I think there is one more thing that matters, which is generally positive interaction with other human beings. The wrong people can make an otherwise good job bad. And forming bonds with other people can help people perform terrible jobs, just ask any soldier in the trenches.

fear the walking dead

AMC is producing a (predictably pro-weapon) prequel show called Fear the Walking Dead. An excerpt is provided by Fresh Air:

KIM DICKENS: (As Madison) So why the knife? Hey – I could expel you just for crossing the threshold with that thing.

LINCOLN A. CASTELLANOS: (As Tobias) No. Please. We’re safer in numbers.

DICKENS: (As Madison) Safer from what? Tobias, please, don’t screw yourself like this. You’ve been working your ass off. You’re on track to go to college.

CASTELLANOS: (As Tobias) Yeah. No one’s going to college. No one’s doing anything they think they are.

DICKENS: (As Madison) What? What are you talking about?

CASTELLANOS: (As Tobias) Can I get my knife back, please?

DICKENS: (As Madison) No, you can’t get your knife back.

CASTELLANOS: (As Tobias) They say it’s not connected. They say that, but I don’t believe them. It is – from reports in five states. They don’t know if it’s a virus or a microbe. They don’t know, but it’s spreading.

Ah, fun stuff.

 

zero waste

How could you have a zero solid waste (aka garbage) lifestyle?

Now, take a look into your trash can. If you mostly see food packaging and food scraps…not good.

There’s an easy fix to this, and it’s called a zero waste lifestyle. Today, I’ll share my tips on how to avoid this kind of garbage – and hence – reduce the amount of your trash that ends up in the landfill.

THE ZERO WASTE SHOPPING ESSENTIALS

Zero Waste shopping requires some preparation and a little investment. You’ll need:

  • Reusable grocery bag. It’s no surprise that plastic bags are enormous harm to our environment. It’s easy to make the switch to reusable bags. Just be sure to stash a few where you’ll remember to take them before shopping.
  • Cotton/Hemp Muslin Bags. These are great for produce, nuts, beans, grains, etc. You can find them on Amazon.com or DIY.
  • Glass/Stainless Steel containers. They work best for meat, seafood and poultry by keeping food fresh.

I love the idea. I have trouble seeing myself washing glass containers (how many fit in my dishwasher?), lugging them back to the store, and convincing someone to refill them. That sounds heavy for one thing, and I go to the store on foot. I tend to think my not driving to the store negates the environmental harm of a few plastic bags. Still, I like the idea. As we travel to stores less and have more stuff delivered, it could start to make sense. You have a standardized container for everything. At the same time the delivery company delivers your new containers full of stuff, it is willing to pick up your dirty used containers and take them away to be washed, sterilized, and reused. We used to all do this with glass bottles, of course, but the economics of plastic packaging seems to be more advantageous. Of course the economics work, in part, because the consumer rather than the manufacturer is paying the disposal cost, and we are all collectively paying the environmental cost. If we had the political will, we could regulate or tax these external costs and see if that tipped the system back towards reuse. Or we can wait and see if automation and the increasing popularity of home delivery tips the economics again.

making carbon fiber from atmospheric CO2

Here is some research on making carbon nanofibers directly from atmospheric CO2. Sounds like a good idea both because you are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and because you can make all kinds of light, strong materials from nanofibers, which would allow lighter, safer, more energy efficient vehicles among other things.

Licht estimates electrical energy costs of this “solar thermal electrochemical process” to be around $1,000 per ton of carbon nanofiber product, which means the cost of running the system is hundreds of times less than the value of product output.

“We calculate that with a physical area less than 10 percent the size of the Sahara Desert, our process could remove enough CO2 to decrease atmospheric levels to those of the pre-industrial revolution within 10 years,” he says.

cancer-sniffing dogs

Here’s an article on cancer-sniffing dogs.

The samples come to the dogs — the dogs never go to the patient. At the moment, our dogs would be screening about between a .5- to 1-ml drop of urine [or 1/5 to 1/10 teaspoon], so a very small amount. In the early days, of course, we know whether the samples have come from a patient with cancer or if the patient has another disease or condition, or is in fact healthy.

They come to the dogs at our training facility. They’re put into a carousel, and the dogs go around smelling samples. If they come across a sample that has a cancer smell, they’ll stop and stare at the sample and wait. They won’t move on.

One thing this reminds me of is that the organic compounds in our bodies, our food, and the rest of nature are just incredibly complex. When we try to measure and recreate them, we tend to miss the mark. A vitamin pill is not as good as a salad, baby formula is not as good at breast milk, and food grown with synthetic fertilizers is probably not as nutritious as food grown in healthy soil (although the evidence on this is not entirely conclusive). So it makes sense that when we try to devises a test for a particular compound, we may only be testing for some of what is actually there.

more on automation

The Economist has an article reviewing three recent papers on automation (i.e. robots, artificial intelligence) and employment. For two of the three papers, the bottom line is that automation has led to inequality in the past, because it means unemployment for some groups of people, but has led to overall economic growth and society-wide benefits in the longer term. The third paper, however, talks about the current exponential “explosion” of technological progress as a revolutionary development that cannot be compared to anything in the recent past. The last time anything like this happened was about 500 million years ago.

These are all open access, so I’ll put links to the papers below along with abstracts.

Autor, David H. 2015. “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3): 3-30.

In this essay, I begin by identifying the reasons that automation has not wiped out a majority of jobs over the decades and centuries. Automation does indeed substitute for labor—as it is typically intended to do. However, automation also complements labor, raises output in ways that leads to higher demand for labor, and interacts with adjustments in labor supply. Journalists and even expert commentators tend to overstate the extent of machine substitution for human labor and ignore the strong complementarities between automation and labor that increase productivity, raise earnings, and augment demand for labor. Changes in technology do alter the types of jobs available and what those jobs pay. In the last few decades, one noticeable change has been a “polarization” of the labor market, in which wage gains went disproportionately to those at the top and at the bottom of the income and skill distribution, not to those in the middle; however, I also argue, this polarization is unlikely to continue very far into future. The final section of this paper reflects on how recent and future advances in artificial intelligence and robotics should shape our thinking about the likely trajectory of occupational change and employment growth. I argue that the interplay between machine and human comparative advantage allows computers to substitute for workers in performing routine, codifiable tasks while amplifying the comparative advantage of workers in supplying problem-solving skills, adaptability, and creativity.

Mokyr, Joel, Chris Vickers, and Nicolas L. Ziebarth. 2015. “The History of Technological Anxiety and the Future of Economic Growth: Is This Time Different?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3): 31-50.

Technology is widely considered the main source of economic progress, but it has also generated cultural anxiety throughout history. The developed world is now suffering from another bout of such angst. Anxieties over technology can take on several forms, and we focus on three of the most prominent concerns. First, there is the concern that technological progress will cause widespread substitution of machines for labor, which in turn could lead to technological unemployment and a further increase in inequality in the short run, even if the long-run effects are beneficial. Second, there has been anxiety over the moral implications of technological process for human welfare, broadly defined. While, during the Industrial Revolution, the worry was about the dehumanizing effects of work, in modern times, perhaps the greater fear is a world where the elimination of work itself is the source of dehumanization. A third concern cuts in the opposite direction, suggesting that the epoch of major technological progress is behind us. Understanding the history of technological anxiety provides perspective on whether this time is truly different. We consider the role of these three anxieties among economists, primarily focusing on the historical period from the late 18th to the early 20th century, and then compare the historical and current manifestations of these three concerns.

Pratt, Gill A. 2015. “Is a Cambrian Explosion Coming for Robotics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3): 51-60.

About half a billion years ago, life on earth experienced a short period of very rapid diversification called the “Cambrian Explosion.” Many theories have been proposed for the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, one of the most provocative being the evolution of vision, allowing animals to dramatically increase their ability to hunt and find mates. Today, technological developments on several fronts are fomenting a similar explosion in the diversification and applicability of robotics. Many of the base hardware technologies on which robots depend—particularly computing, data storage, and communications—have been improving at exponential growth rates. Two newly blossoming technologies—”Cloud Robotics” and “Deep Learning”—could leverage these base technologies in a virtuous cycle of explosive growth. I examine some key technologies contributing to the present excitement in the robotics field. As with other technological developments, there has been a significant uptick in concerns about the societal implication of robotics and artificial intelligence. Thus, I offer some thoughts about how robotics may affect the economy and some ways to address potential difficulties.

global slowdown?

Over the past day or two, the BBC headlines have been expressing some pessimism about the global economy.

Tough outlook for emerging markets

Three long trending factors that have supported economic growth – and financial market returns – across the developing economies appear to be either reversing or slowing…

Add together slowing world trade, collapsing commodity prices and less easy global financial conditions, and you’ve got a recipe for a tough time for emerging economies. Not necessarily for a 1997-style meltdown, but certainly for an environment for lower growth and lower returns for investors.

Chinese economic winter ‘cooling’ world economy

There are growing fears about the health of the global economy after a day of market turmoil.

Across the world share prices and currencies have fallen and the London stock exchange has dropped to its lowest level for seven months.

The slowdown in China, the world’s second largest economy, is being blamed.

US stocks hit by global growth fears

Stocks on Wall Street fell sharply on Thursday as worries about global economic growth continued to hit markets around the world.

The Dow Jones closed down 358.04 points, or 2.1%, at 16,990.69.

 

Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein’s book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate is coming out in paperback. (Does that matter in the digital age?) She is pretty scathing when she describes how her fellow humans are messing up our civilization project (this is the New York Times book review):

To call “This Changes Everything” environmental is to limit Klein’s considerable agenda. “There is still time to avoid catastrophic warming,” she contends, “but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed. Which is surely the best argument there has ever been for changing those rules.” On the green left, many share Klein’s sentiments. George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian, recently lamented that even though “the claims of market fundamentalism have been disproven as dramatically as those of state communism, somehow this zombie ideology staggers on.” Klein, Monbiot and Bill McKibben all insist that we cannot avert the ecological disaster that confronts us without loosening the grip of that superannuated zombie ideology.

That philosophy — ­neoliberalism — promotes a high-consumption, ­carbon-hungry system. Neoliberalism has encouraged mega-mergers, trade agreements hostile to environmental and labor regulations, and global hypermobility, enabling a corporation like Exxon to make, as McKibben has noted, “more money last year than any company in the history of money.” Their outsize power mangles the democratic process. Yet the carbon giants continue to reap $600 billion in annual subsidies from public coffers, not to speak of a greater subsidy: the right, in Klein’s words, to treat the atmosphere as a “waste dump.” …

In democracies driven by lobbyists, donors and plutocrats, the giant polluters are going to win while the rest of us, in various degrees of passivity and complicity, will watch the planet die. “Any attempt to rise to the climate challenge will be fruitless unless it is understood as part of a much broader battle of worldviews,” Klein writes. “Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war.”

bees

Here’s a nice example of how diversity is related to resilience. As honeybees are having more problems, farmers are learning to use combinations of other bees, including bumblebees, to get the same pollination effect.

just like in the apple orchards, scientists are finding that between those two kinds of bees, farmers can probably get by without using honeybees. It’s all part of a new strategy of diversification that entomologist Shelby Fleischer affectionately refers to as Plan B.

“I think the key to remember is resilience,” Fleischer says. “So don’t just aim for any one species. Historically, there’s been a lot of emphasis on making honeybees our pollinator, and resilience suggests that we should try and support a community of bees.”