Hi Hacksaw,

Don't know when WM will respond but I just had to jump in <evil grin>.

Quote Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
I would argue that the impact of an omni -present info sphere is less upheaval as opppsed to more. ....

How can it be so? My feeble thought on the matter is that developed economies (to include our own) still suffer the same cyclical periods of "recession" and "inflation" (I do "this" because I'm not sure the definitions still hold true based on time period), the difference is that the flucuation and magnitude of the sine curve is far less pronounced. Why? A possible explaination is that near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole. In other words, the reduction in lag time between reality and knowledge of that same reality reduces the flucuation/upheaval of the past. Money chases high returns, regardless of locale
I think it is important to distinguish between "information", "noise" and "knowledge" here. Information, and I use Bateson's definition as "a difference that makes a difference", does not automatically translate to perception or use of information. You mention the financial markets, but i would suggest to you that they are actually more unstable now than they were 40 years ago due to the proliferation of automation and expert systems as well as massive over production capacities. Like you, I'm only able to toss out anecdotal points, but I think things like Nick Leeson and the Bearings Bank fiasco illustrate some of the problems.

Quote Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
Might this translate to other areas of social activity. I think its likely based on the premise behind the ideas of Adam Smith. It is human nature to act in self-interest. In the example we discussed, I may have more knowledge of those with more, but I also have more knowledge of the impact of social upheaval. Hence, societies will likely reach a stasis and then as a matter of course make rapid minor corrections that result in little "mass upheaval". Of course, getting to that stasis is likely to be a b1tch or this example might not translate. I certainly can't point to any rigorous academic analysis of my premise, but then again it makes sense in the vacuum between my ears.
Personally, I don't think it translates. Smith's premise is too focused on a singular facet of human nature and way too "rational". And, while self interest is a motivator, it is not the only one by a long shot. For example, there has been an incredible amount of work done looking at altruism, or at least the ability to fake it in social settings, as a requirement for a society to function.

Second, as a species, we've been on a roller coaster ride for at least 12,000 years ever since some twit decided to settle down and get into horticulture. We have had quasi-stable periods and, as long as change has been fairly slow, say over a 100 year period, we tends to not perceive that change too much. However, every major change in communications technology has also been matched with a fairly major change in social organization and instability. Sure, it tapers off for a while but that is because the technology matures and is absorbed in the culture. At the same time, that technology also acts as a catalyst to produce new communications technologies as it reaches its limits which, in turn, sets off more instabilities.

Personally, I don't think we will see a "stasis" period for a while, but, hey, I could easily be wrong .

Marc