Pursuing Outcomes Process

I'm pondering leading indicators this morning.  What are the signals that indicate predictable outcomes, both positive and negative outcomes.  

More broadly, the whole framework of outcomes and the activities that lead to outcomes is interesting. It's kind of like this...

1. Fact - Experience and genetic bias, which leads to ...
2. Belief - Beliefs about circumstances, which leads to ...
3. Desire - Needs or desires, which leads to ...
4. Vision - Imagined desired outcomes, which may lead to ...
5. Plan - A plan, which is a system of intermediate outcomes, which may lead to ...
6. Action - Actions, impacts on the real world, which ideally lead to ...
7. Change - Real desired outcomes, i.e. change.
8. Check - How does the change align with the desire?
9. Repeat - Repeat the above steps.

Of course, it's more complicated than that but that's the straight line idealistic flow.  The multi-dimensional version of this is much more nuanced and interesting.  The process may be terminated at any step, it may go wrong (have error introduced) at any step, it may be arbitrary at any step.  Each step also begs for a deeper analysis.  There's also the orthogonal perspective that the execution of this process is a collection of facts that inform other pursuits of outcomes.  It also may be interesting to, among other things, explore the roles of analysis and technology in this process.

Experience

 An interesting aspect of experience is that when you have little of it many issues arise that can seem traumatic.  As you gain more experience you begin to realize that many issues are survivable and thus become less traumatic.  As you age you generally accumulate a lot of experience and many issues that might of been traumatic are less so.  This is an aspect of wisdom.  

In contrast though, when you have a great deal of experience and you encounter an unfamiliar issue then it can be just as traumatic as if you'd encountered it at an earlier age.  This may help to explain the peculiar risk aversion as you get older.  In a sense, it's a reluctance to gain further experience. This may be an aspect of your brain filling up.  Your mental capacity begins to roll off at around age 30.  Whether or not it declines is an open question, but the amount of free space likely dimishes just because it gets consumed by experience.

Is Humanity Worth Saving?

It's an interesting question given humanity's propensity for shortsighted and self-destructive decision making.  Glibly, the answer is no.  It's not worth saving and should get exactly what it deserves.  It is not earning its way as a responsible contributor to the universe.  

That, of course, begs the question of what does the universe want? Other than a few fantasies that we've crafted it's unclear. We have values as humans such as order, beauty, and joy.  Science is the objective pursuit of discovering order in the universe.  Beauty straddles a line between the objective and subjective.  Much of what is considered to be beautiful are objective observations with subjective assessments.  Joy is entirely subjective and tends to be generated by the orderly and beautiful. These are potential self-centered reasons for humans to continue to exist, but in an of themselves don't answer the question of what the universe wants.

What does the universe want?  What if it doesn't want anything?  It's just a medium where things like humanity can take root and spend their term?  A truly ambivalent perspective is hard to wrap your head around (thus the invention of gods).  It turns out that dirt, as an analogy, has a purpose which is to grow plants.  These plants eventually die and decompose.  Their nutrients return to the soil so that more plants can grow.  It's a thing to do and gives dirt a purpose for continuing.  Dirt generally doesn't care which plants grow just as long as they ultimately contribute to the cycle.  Dirt is a critical component of a cyclic system.  Is the universe a cyclic system? Is life a symbiot in the sense that plants are sybiots of dirt? If so, then so far the universe appears to be a desert.  The discovery of life elsewhere would add more light to this.

There's a lot to ponder here.  What if it doesn't matter if humans become responsible citezens of the universe? We exist to be entirely self-serving.  Humanity, like all other life, has a finite lifespan.  It will eventually pass away and it's own characteristics may play a vital role in this.  Saving humanity is a little like paying attention to diet and exercise.  Then what comes to mind is the following cartoon.

Perhaps this is the insight.  I dunno.

Hubris

Hubris is what will ultimiately destroy humanity.  The belief that you're "better than" rather than "a part of".  It's always good to ponder the metaphor, "What's the most important link in a chain?"  It turns out there isn't one. They each play an important and vital role.  Now if you ask, "What's the most impactful link in a chain?", that's easier.  It's the one that breaks.

When chains break, it happens suddenly but often not without warning. We've had a lot of warning.  Clearly more than we deserve.

Philosophy of Life

Either adapt to the current situation as you see it or die.  There really is no middle ground.

Liberalism and Its Discontents

This is a book I need to read...

Liberalism and Its Discontents, by Francis Fukuyama

Identity

I recommend the book ...

Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment by Francis Fukuyama

In fact,  I'll even elevate it to the status of Lonnie's Core Educational Books that everyone should read.