Expert complexity

A new tool rolled out by a research institution (1), allows decision-makers reach better decisions by surveying experts. Specifically, a related paper published in Nature Energy concludes that wind energy costs will fall by 24-30% by 2030 (2). To understand what method of alternate energy production is most viable, one has to disaggregate the problem into two distinct questions:

1. What's the status-quo economics - i.e what is the total cost of production per unit of energy for all available modalities - including, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, fossil and others? And, it is important to understand total costs, however "green," the manufacturers of the turbines and solar cells claim to be.

2. How is this cost likely to decline by scale or newer technologies or both?

The first question has significant available data and does not require any expert opinion. The second question has two parts to it - scale based decline in cost and the probability of the arrival of a technology discontinuity. The former is also an empirical and engineering question that does not require experts to open up their infinite wisdom and the latter is mere speculation that experts could certainly contribute to.

More generally, alternative energy production techniques have comparable status-quo metrics that informs which method is dominant. The idea that "we should try everything," is fundamentally faulty as there is only one best design. The scale question requires more analysis and thought - part of this is related to total available quantity (i.e. how much energy could the world produce if it were to harness the source with 100% efficiency) and the other is related to efficiency gains that will accrue due to scale and learning effects. Both of these questions are well explored in many fields and thus we can easily create forecasted metrics of cost per unit of production across production modalities, without troubling the experts.

Scientists and policy-makers have a tendency to complicate simple problems. But it typically does not add much value, even with software, experts or research. Numbers are more reliable predictors of the performance of engineering systems than experts.

(1) https://carnegiescience.edu/news/new-tools-assess-future-wind-power
(2) http://esciencenews.com/articles/2016/09/13/new.tools.assess.future.wind.power

Eaten alive

Recent research from the University of Texas (1) sets the timing of the genius Homo excursion out of Africa to an earlier time and a harsher reality. They "mingled," with saber-toothed cats, wolves and hyenas and they ate only as many times as they were eaten. With a brain size smaller than half that of the modern human, their tools were primitive and their processes less compelling. They were effectively scavengers, with a badly designed and fragile infrastructure, that was no match to the mighty cats.

Human ego may have overlooked some information in the past as they had imagined their ancestors tall, dark and sturdy, leaving Africa, with a highly sophisticated technology, the hand ax. The UT team, based on a large sample over a 4 hectare area, argue this is not the case. The finding has implications, not only for history but also for biases that systematically creep into academic studies. In this contemporary world, where possibly half the population is likely unaware that its seven billion inhabitants are closely related, regardless of their outward appearances, scientists may need to do a better job in education. For without education, entire countries could walk back decades of progress and entire continents could move toward punishing tactical conflict. And, that would not be significantly different from what existed 1.8 million years ago, in architecture and context.

Humans have paid a big penalty because of their incessant curiosity, exploring foreign lands before they were possibly ready but what they brought to humanity is valuable knowledge. It will be a shame if modern humans lose it.

(1) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/meet-frail-small-brained-people-who-first-trekked-out-africa

The great money experiment

Cash, an ancient form of monetary value facilitating transactions, is still dominant in most parts of the world. Initially, cash represented precious objects, an idea that forms the foundation of the gold standard, yet another archaic concept pursued by those who do not know that the world has changed. More recently, the English East India Company, that minted coins to send to the East to buy spices and borrowed the term "cash" from Sanskrit, may have been solely responsible for the adoption of cash across the empire. It is only apt that India is getting rid of "excess cash," the source of corruption, tax evasion and terrorism.

Paper money has substantially expanded monetary incompetence across the globe. If electrons can count and fly across the globe instantly to account for credits and debits, it is unclear why humans carry metal and paper in their pockets to transact. Bad habits die slow and in a world that does not barter, cash was a crutch, that is no longer needed. Those who say politicians lack vision should look East, albeit, it is a singular experiment that breaks open new possibilities. Physical forms of cash has been inefficient, archaic and problematic for centuries but none had the guts to get rid of it. To time such a catastrophe, when the eyes of the world is transfixed on the other side of the world, is pure genius.

Yes, the unexpected policy change is going to bring tactical strife to a billion people, except those who had some early warnings to move their "excess cash," to Switzerland. But it may still be utility maximizing for a country that is becoming the largest in the world with a population languishing without technology and information. The prime minister appears forward  looking but it is going to take more that a few trips to Google, Microsoft and Facebook, to prop up a country that seems to have lost its way. Sure its engineers and doctors are sought after but the soul of the country, struggling to find its place, has failed to instill confidence to propel it beyond the third world status, it has been afforded.

Getting rid of corruption and excess cash is the first step. But to go further, India has to provide technology and information to its masses in an architecture that is based on free markets and free trade and not what its socialists leaders proposed from inception.