Point to Technology Optimists

There's a new gasoline engine on the block. The new Wave Disk prototype could potentially drive much more efficient cars and contribute much less weight to the vehicle.

The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines.

Of course, while this is a point for technologic optimists, who believe that humanity shouldn't focus on resource conservation because we'll just innovate out of any resource crunch, it's also a test for the realities of the capabilities of the market to actually adapt. Oil companies have a lot to lose from decreased demand, and a huge amount of economic and political power that could delay the introduction of the Wave Disk engine into the market. Think electric car in 1970.

American Dreamin'

A comment caught my eye this weekend on Paul Krguman's blog post "Eat the Rich" on which I already commented. It evokes a theme in the modern liberal-conservative split on the conception of nationhood. The meat of the comment, from a Minnesotan going by "Dan" is as follows, beginning with a quote from Krugman's piece:

"let’s cut that, because the damage to the nation from malnourishment is a problem for future politicians."

No, Paul, it's a problem for the malnourished individuals, not the responsible individuals who aren't sheeple or cattle and simply know how to eat right, save for retirement, avoid living in flooded hurricane magnet locations. Quit trying to socialize problems that are problems of individuals, and not of society as a whole.

The conservative world view is fairly easy to sum up: individuals are solely respnsible for their destiny.

Just for the moment, let's grant this premise: responsible adults, essentially meaning ones free of mental health problems, shape their own ends. This fails to explain why society should not be concerned with providing nutritional assistance to families with young children, as WIC does. Malnutrition is not a matter of diet for the vast majority of people who suffer from it, but from a lack of available food. Children are particularly susceptible to malnutrition because their bodies are developing. They are also dependent on their families for food. If a family cannot afford food, the child will be malnourished (barring stealing in order to feed the child). WIC prevents malnourishment in children. Malnourishment during development can have lifetime consequences for physical development, hamstringing brain, organ, or limb development. Problems in development create problems down the road for the child.

Is it in society's interest to protect its children from malnourishment? Though Dan would have us believe that this is a normative question, it hardly is.

Meritocracy and the Super Elite

I just wanted to pass this Atlantic article on the super-elite of the global economy. I found it fascinating, and think that you will too.

There are a few main points:

1. Many of the super elite already recognize that the economy which created their wealthy is dependent on a functioning, open society. This recognition creates incentives (including social incentives within the global elite community) to engage in large-scale philanthropy.
2. Ayn Rand's utopian withdrawal of the superman from society is a fiction. The global elite is a product of the market; even the gifted cannot transcend their origins entirely, especially when the mechanism of their elevation (wealth) is a social fiction.
3. Transnational elite are looking beyond the borders of their home nations for problems to solve. America is not the primary beneficiary of American business success, though it certainly enjoys ancillary benefits. The resource allocation decisions especially among metrics-oriented philanthropy will tend to cluster around the low hanging fruit: drinking water, immunizations, and other public health concerns where infrastructure can be built from the ground up. Reform is a tougher nut, so don't expect many philanthropists to follow the Gates' Foundation attempts to tinker with American schools.

The competitive nature of philanthropy from the global capitalist set will be targeted into the same regions that make business investments attractive. They keyword is "emerging markets." Societies that require the least investment for the largest, most visible, and best measured returns are the most attractive.

Previously privileged groups (e.g. the American middle class) are not going to like this shift, but from a utilitarian standpoint, it seems like a necessary one. Charity dollars will be evaporating from American shores in order to assuage the guilty consciences of the global elite, funding more exotic projects abroad. Maybe American governments (local, state, and federal) will step into the breach and demand the resources to provide a higher standard of living to their constituents from the super wealthy.