Thinking does not solve problems it merely expresses the possibility. This vast, uniquely human capacity brings to mind a contemporary criticism of the medical system that defines a healthy person as one who has not been fully worked up.
Outside this glorious realm of thoughts and laughs, the work of finding and defining a real, live lie and not the presumption of one is the first step in proving a truth. In this sense, a lie and the truth are brothers. They are born of an honest union in most cases, but now they walk the earth telling stories of their competitive exploits and views on how the world works. In this way, they represent the reasonableness of adjudication systems by asking us to choose between two versions of the truth. They differ and vary in detail, but present honest interpretations. They learn from us that we in the audience will pick the one we like most, making our choice a matter of categorical interest over factual accuracy.
Please take comfort in this chaotic combination of inductive and deductive processes, that from the specific to the general, and from the general to the specific because it evolves in stages. First, the legal concepts build up as cases are compared. Second level stages wrestle for a while with the inherent ambiguity of language. The most dramatic are causation arguments. The causes of global warming are most well known. In this mix, the concept becomes exclusive, while the process of reasoning continues to place specific events inside and outside of the concept. A third condition or stage emerges as reasoning through these examples moves ahead until matters of kind move into matters of degree leading to the breakdown of the concept into newly discrete components. Get it? It is back to basics.
Change occurs in a kind of 3D matrix that defines where, when and why ideas ignite into use. This “four vehicular accidents equal one stop sign” solution is a problem because there is no proof in preemption. Nevertheless, the assignment of natural resource consumption rates is concrete. This is the “unsafe at any speed” narrative for our century. As consumption rates begin to exceed the earth’s replacement capacity, the examples of kind will have measurable quantities. Most of it is about making stuff directly attributable to the loss of life or a quality of it on predictable, known parts of the earth.
I would work the concept you are developing in the climate change cases as the law against the presumption of entitled consumption. Take these steps:
Step One: Step back, look at the roots of technology, and decide to become comfortable with getting to know the arc of this change.
Step Two: Look at the advancement of choices, the mix of talent and ability, and see how the making of things expresses every human genius. The idea that we have to make or acquire stuff to find "ultimate expression" misses the point. It is about the choice of stuff.
Step Three: Private Workshop Project. Transect the ground between just two things, perhaps a collection of bobble-head dolls and the string of PCs you have known to date. Realize there is little to measure beyond a cult of personalities and the acquisition of gigabytes. Now do it this with one thousand “things” and make choices using tools such as the Good Guide.
Step Four: Accept the human opportunity in this process is to expect change, not to know what it will mean.
Step Five: Public Workshop Project. Imagine the world before language. It is a whisper of thought, the fragment of an individual imagination. Write down what you really need and want to know. Share it.
Step Six: Now imagine knowing everything of that world, of the system itself. As if a tree had knowledge of all trees. Do you see less stuff and more life? If not go back to step one.
Step Seven: Make your own step seven to acquire the knowledge implied and you will become comfortable with dense idea activism and life.
All of the above is how I imagined Kevin Kelly might make an argument for a new kind of quality of life. given added restraints. It would develop in what he calls the “technium” and it is described in his book What Technology Wants. As I examine the possible formation of a super urban density, I also see it as a direct way to support the design of major improvements in public human capital investments also called knowledge capital.
There is one very important public policy change required if it is to be successful in expressing the freedom of people. When defining the relevant economic and environmental conditions for social capital investment, the tendency is to view these investments in a broad social dimension. This means a local education budget in NYC for education cannot capture this investment for local use as it might end up in Los Angeles. It is a flaw in the Republic that policy makers attempt to balance through immigration law.
These days are ending and this overall approach typically disregards the experience of individuals in obtaining viable social capabilities. The type found by the well-known midrange of Maslow’s hierarchy. These two elements (persons and social capacity) are not always in harmony and regardless of the physical design, the public responsibility of governance is assure the individual the widest possible set of choices.
For example, the lack of balance in these policies would be immediately apparent by measuring the number of individuals able to choose among a variety of social dimensions vs. the number who are highly targeted to a limited number. Rarely is the amount of money at the core of the issue as framed by class or race, it is more typically evident by the lack of choice and made more complicated if it becomes pervasive.
