No, it wasn't Trump's twitter or call to "liberate the Democratic states!"
It was an evaluation of how devastating this virus is--once it could be determined how much a threat it poses to the human race.
1--It kills primarily old people, above 65, though it can attack persons of any age.
2--Those who test positive may not need hospitalization and the certain procedures requiring hospitalization.
3--"Old folks' homes" don't usually have medical personnel on their staff; and so there could be changes in the way these facilities are run that would identify virus victims; perhaps, even allow for quarantine quarters on the premises of the afflicted.
4--Care must be made in recommending how the virus should be controlled; and subsequently, overcome. For there are not only physical affects to any such recommendation, but also mental and social costs, e.g., increase in crime, famine as occurring in Africa and South America; but deterioration of the social fabric.
Clearly, the methods promoted by the public health people to prevent the spread of the virus should be in place while mitigation proceeds in reopening.
Reopening should be in stages as set forth by governmental administrations.
And, as reopening proceeds, there should be milestones, at each of which an evaluation should occur: whether to continue to the next stage of reopening or even to go back.
You will note that the governors have by and large been responsible agents in their planning for reopening.
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Tuesday, April 7, 2020
C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "Link' by Lorien Pratt"
The night of 4/2/20 was the airing of the discussion of the book Link by Lorien Pratt, who is its author. The event took place recently at the Institute for the Future, in Palo Alto, California. Ms. Pratt is a proponent of DI--decision intelligence--and I believe is on the staff of the Institute. Ms Joy Mountford was the discussion's moderator.
DI attempts to tie together, or link, actions to outcomes; and see the process as a human contrivance to make action purposeful, designed to achieve outcomes human beings are trying to bring about through their actions. The essential linkage of actions to outcomes stamps the process as deliberately pursued in an effort to make a better world through human thought and effort.
Though one cannot anticipate the full impact of an action in a universe of manifold consequences of some purposeful set of actions toward a desired effect, DI sets forth to explain human action in terms of what the agent or doer is attempting to achieve. Ms. Pratt observed that the movement arose some years ago as an improvement in the march toward AI in cybernetics to settle upon a plan for actions to effect human want as the causal agent's motivation. So, in a specific situation, when people cannot not seem to agree on some plan of action, DI structures are brought into play to settle the dispute over how to proceed. Seemingly, knowing what doers are after can resolve the issue of how to proceed.
DI starts its analysis by knowing what goals are that are intended as outcomes of what the participants, i.e., the people being brought together, are being called to do. Human effort is to direct both the planning and execution stages, since knowledge of the intended outcomes dominate the entire analysis. In this way, DI differs from simple decision-making; it is decision making with an end view always in accounting for some proposed course of action--making a decision in a place and time (i.e., the situation) to achieve a particular set of results you and your group want.
My overall comment: There is obvious merit in making action directed, keeping in mind that much more will become learned about the set of actions pursued in actually attempting to perform them.
DI seems a promising way to analyze the stream of deliberate human action.
DI attempts to tie together, or link, actions to outcomes; and see the process as a human contrivance to make action purposeful, designed to achieve outcomes human beings are trying to bring about through their actions. The essential linkage of actions to outcomes stamps the process as deliberately pursued in an effort to make a better world through human thought and effort.
Though one cannot anticipate the full impact of an action in a universe of manifold consequences of some purposeful set of actions toward a desired effect, DI sets forth to explain human action in terms of what the agent or doer is attempting to achieve. Ms. Pratt observed that the movement arose some years ago as an improvement in the march toward AI in cybernetics to settle upon a plan for actions to effect human want as the causal agent's motivation. So, in a specific situation, when people cannot not seem to agree on some plan of action, DI structures are brought into play to settle the dispute over how to proceed. Seemingly, knowing what doers are after can resolve the issue of how to proceed.
DI starts its analysis by knowing what goals are that are intended as outcomes of what the participants, i.e., the people being brought together, are being called to do. Human effort is to direct both the planning and execution stages, since knowledge of the intended outcomes dominate the entire analysis. In this way, DI differs from simple decision-making; it is decision making with an end view always in accounting for some proposed course of action--making a decision in a place and time (i.e., the situation) to achieve a particular set of results you and your group want.
My overall comment: There is obvious merit in making action directed, keeping in mind that much more will become learned about the set of actions pursued in actually attempting to perform them.
DI seems a promising way to analyze the stream of deliberate human action.
Monday, April 6, 2020
C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "'Make, Think, Imagine: Engineering the Future of Civilization' by John Browne"
I picked up the broadcasting of the evening of 4/2/20. The discussion took place on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. Mr. Browne was the CEO of BP Petroleum.
A moderator-questioner of Mr. Browne was Professor A. Minisinis of Rice University.
The major viewpoint he got across in his book is that without engineering that makes knowledge practical for our civilization we would not enjoy the better life available to us. And, in the future, we must depend on the constant flow of knowledge into our culture or risk the extinction of the human race. Scientists tell us that the earth will at some time in our future no longer will be inhabitable. We must progress through knowledge rendered essential to our civilization: that is our calling.
The promise for our civilization to continue "ad infinitum" lies in mankind's ability to imagine. Knowledge in an of itself does not have the power nor inherent feature to forestall civilization's extinction were it not that the human being in his reflective moments of pondering knowledge can imagine how he can apply the knowledge to guarantee our race a lasting and improving existence.
Mr. Browne how the individual knower can come up with a practical application to human experience: he knows how to apply knowledge because by his mental prowess, he is a problem-solver. For in solving knawing irritation-causing dilemmas, he makes his world a better place for the generations to come.
Mr. Browne admits that the most critical of problems before mankind right now is what to do with the carbon residue that is emitted from combustible engines. This pollutant has been a source of questioning whether the race can sustain its continued progress. "We must solve this in the near future," he argues, "for contemporary life is dependent on oil and gas for its lifestyle. Oil and gas account for 75% of our energy, giving us a phenomenal prosperity."
Succinctly put: through engineering techniques, the human imagination transforms the knowledge he has been taught into a physical reality his civilization can enjoy and benefit from far into the future.
Browne cautions that there are good and bad uses wraught in mankind's world through the application of knowledge, but overall, he is convinced that mankind is driven by the aspiration to make progress for civilization. "Keep progress on track!" his mantra.
A moderator-questioner of Mr. Browne was Professor A. Minisinis of Rice University.
The major viewpoint he got across in his book is that without engineering that makes knowledge practical for our civilization we would not enjoy the better life available to us. And, in the future, we must depend on the constant flow of knowledge into our culture or risk the extinction of the human race. Scientists tell us that the earth will at some time in our future no longer will be inhabitable. We must progress through knowledge rendered essential to our civilization: that is our calling.
The promise for our civilization to continue "ad infinitum" lies in mankind's ability to imagine. Knowledge in an of itself does not have the power nor inherent feature to forestall civilization's extinction were it not that the human being in his reflective moments of pondering knowledge can imagine how he can apply the knowledge to guarantee our race a lasting and improving existence.
Mr. Browne how the individual knower can come up with a practical application to human experience: he knows how to apply knowledge because by his mental prowess, he is a problem-solver. For in solving knawing irritation-causing dilemmas, he makes his world a better place for the generations to come.
Mr. Browne admits that the most critical of problems before mankind right now is what to do with the carbon residue that is emitted from combustible engines. This pollutant has been a source of questioning whether the race can sustain its continued progress. "We must solve this in the near future," he argues, "for contemporary life is dependent on oil and gas for its lifestyle. Oil and gas account for 75% of our energy, giving us a phenomenal prosperity."
Succinctly put: through engineering techniques, the human imagination transforms the knowledge he has been taught into a physical reality his civilization can enjoy and benefit from far into the future.
Browne cautions that there are good and bad uses wraught in mankind's world through the application of knowledge, but overall, he is convinced that mankind is driven by the aspiration to make progress for civilization. "Keep progress on track!" his mantra.
Saturday, April 4, 2020
C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "'Seven Pillars' edited by Michael Rubin et al"
The airing took place the night of 3/31/20; and the event was at the American Enterprise Institute.
Several points were raised by panel members, some of whom were both contributors and editors, I surmised. The points are interesting, to say the least, though perhaps not made before by observers to the Middle-East chaos.
1. The real winner from the Arab Spring awakening was Tunisia. It seemed to become stable and more democratic. In sum, the country seems to be doing well, internally. No dissent among the group.
2. But the region is plagued with countries with internal strife, all admitted. And one wonders why the US appears so quick to heed the demand from Iraq to get out entirely--both from presence in its country and in the region! Personally, I think the continued presence of US military can only help create a stable environment that is in dire throughout.
Several of the participants observed that religion, viz., Muslim, is appealed to by governmental leaders to as to make it seem they are themselves have legitimacy to rule as if ordained by on high. And, one or two of the participants pointed out that the Middle East is not benefiting from the wave of populism sweeping across its sands, because the people are not fooled: they, particularly the youth, want an end to corruption in government and call for institutional structures that foster stability--primarily, jobs. One panelist even characterized most of the governments there as part of a caretaker government, bound to be replaced by true leaders, not simply those now holding government posts.
3. Complaint was lodged by this or that participant over US diplomacy that hasn't brought about reforms to economic and financial institutions, despite the obvious widespread grab for oil among the powerful. How can these fanatical power-hungry leaders be brought under rein for the sake of a stable, peaceful land? It seems the world has unleashed a bevy of radicals, e.g., Isis, to fight it out on the public streets and by-ways.
4. There is urgent need for Muslim reform similar to what Christians experienced during the Reformation, several speakers agreed. But they cautioned, don't mention it in any event there, where you would be heard: the subject is taboo!
5. But what came across to me was how the area has been bombarded with so much yelling and shouting that the people's response to it all is consternation; sheer panic. Where can they turn? How have the people benefited over the past 40 years of so much rancor and terror?
What is left of their tradition and cultural ways?
6. There is a rise of nationalism in the area simply because Ma and Pa are tired of foreign people invading their mosques and stores with new wonders to cure their ailing societies, that have are marked with the signs of psychological confusion and disorientation.
P.S. I am not sure how the title "Seven Pillars" crystallizes the points that emerged from discussion by a very weary band of panelist-travelers!
Several points were raised by panel members, some of whom were both contributors and editors, I surmised. The points are interesting, to say the least, though perhaps not made before by observers to the Middle-East chaos.
1. The real winner from the Arab Spring awakening was Tunisia. It seemed to become stable and more democratic. In sum, the country seems to be doing well, internally. No dissent among the group.
2. But the region is plagued with countries with internal strife, all admitted. And one wonders why the US appears so quick to heed the demand from Iraq to get out entirely--both from presence in its country and in the region! Personally, I think the continued presence of US military can only help create a stable environment that is in dire throughout.
Several of the participants observed that religion, viz., Muslim, is appealed to by governmental leaders to as to make it seem they are themselves have legitimacy to rule as if ordained by on high. And, one or two of the participants pointed out that the Middle East is not benefiting from the wave of populism sweeping across its sands, because the people are not fooled: they, particularly the youth, want an end to corruption in government and call for institutional structures that foster stability--primarily, jobs. One panelist even characterized most of the governments there as part of a caretaker government, bound to be replaced by true leaders, not simply those now holding government posts.
3. Complaint was lodged by this or that participant over US diplomacy that hasn't brought about reforms to economic and financial institutions, despite the obvious widespread grab for oil among the powerful. How can these fanatical power-hungry leaders be brought under rein for the sake of a stable, peaceful land? It seems the world has unleashed a bevy of radicals, e.g., Isis, to fight it out on the public streets and by-ways.
4. There is urgent need for Muslim reform similar to what Christians experienced during the Reformation, several speakers agreed. But they cautioned, don't mention it in any event there, where you would be heard: the subject is taboo!
5. But what came across to me was how the area has been bombarded with so much yelling and shouting that the people's response to it all is consternation; sheer panic. Where can they turn? How have the people benefited over the past 40 years of so much rancor and terror?
What is left of their tradition and cultural ways?
6. There is a rise of nationalism in the area simply because Ma and Pa are tired of foreign people invading their mosques and stores with new wonders to cure their ailing societies, that have are marked with the signs of psychological confusion and disorientation.
P.S. I am not sure how the title "Seven Pillars" crystallizes the points that emerged from discussion by a very weary band of panelist-travelers!
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "'The Dragons and Snakes' by David Kilcullen"
The discussion took place at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, moderated by Clifford May, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute and Mr. Bowman reviewers. The airing was the night of March 30, 2020.
The discussants made several points about the directions of US diplomacy and military presence in hot spots around the world:
1. The US seems to have left out the Afghan government in its discussion for agreement in pulling out of Afghanistan with only the Taliban. It's as if the US were running away from its commitment to the Afghans to create conditions in their country for a better life. By our keeping a residual advisory force there, can't we keep to our commitment to help them?
2. The US military seems to be retaining in its arsenal conventional weaponry, such as the aircraft carrier. What advances can the military display to demonstrate technological advance?
My Comment: perhaps, the new space thrust will do it!
3. The US works best through alliances with its friends who share similar values and principles.
4. Despite continuing criticism, the US has done well in nation-building, even though the countries it has helped to get started have their own ideas about democracy and freedom.
All-in-all the points raised in discussion suggest the book is a ringing endorsement of the proposition that the US is a mighty force to be reckoned with the world over, even in the Middle-East.
The discussants made several points about the directions of US diplomacy and military presence in hot spots around the world:
1. The US seems to have left out the Afghan government in its discussion for agreement in pulling out of Afghanistan with only the Taliban. It's as if the US were running away from its commitment to the Afghans to create conditions in their country for a better life. By our keeping a residual advisory force there, can't we keep to our commitment to help them?
2. The US military seems to be retaining in its arsenal conventional weaponry, such as the aircraft carrier. What advances can the military display to demonstrate technological advance?
My Comment: perhaps, the new space thrust will do it!
3. The US works best through alliances with its friends who share similar values and principles.
4. Despite continuing criticism, the US has done well in nation-building, even though the countries it has helped to get started have their own ideas about democracy and freedom.
All-in-all the points raised in discussion suggest the book is a ringing endorsement of the proposition that the US is a mighty force to be reckoned with the world over, even in the Middle-East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)