Gradient drives everything.

That is an old, supposedly silly chestnut from engineering school salad days, but it is alarmingly insightful.


Ask 100 people what gradient is, and maybe 3 will know it well enough to define it; simply put, gradient is the rate of change of some quantity with respect to some other quantity, most often, space or time.

Without gradient in the universe, identity itself would not exist. Assuming you are finite and not infinite, if the rate of change of 'you' with respect to space was everywhere and for all time zero, then 'you' would not exist at all. At the boundary of your skin, there is an abrupt rate of change of 'you' with respect to space. Assuming you did not exist forever, if the rate of change of 'you' with respect to time was everywhere and for all time zero, then you would not exist anywhere. At the boundary of your conception and death, there is an abrupt rate of change of 'you' as 'you,' even as the borrowed heavy elements and molecules and atoms that you as your process once enjoyed wind their way as part of new gradient driven process to something other than 'you' as 'you.'

The biological details of life itself fundamentally depend on gradient; varying concentrations of chemicals with respect to both time and space and even each other define and drive biological life.

In fact, in the entire universe, there are no known examples of processes -- including life itself, but including natural processes themselves -- that are not totally dependent on the existence of gradient.

A lack of gradient in the universe is consistent with death and even non-existence. Death is another word for stasis, and vice-verse. Homeostasis is not the same as stasis; homeostasis is a balancing of gradients against each other. Even a state of homeostasis is itself dependent on gradient.

Light/dark.
Hot/cold.
Gravity itself is a gradient, perhaps the most understood example of gradient.
Uphill/downhill.
Hard/easy
Poverty/wealth
Health/disease
Risk exists as a gradient.
Reward exists as a gradient.
Weather is jammed packed with examples of gradient.

This applies to everything in the universe. Everything. All natural and even artificial processes. Including and especially economies.

Including Love. Love is one of the strongest gradients known to man. (Think about it; you do not love 'equally.' You love some more than others, and often, one more than all others combined. Love is an intense example of gradient. Your 'rate of change of Love with respect to humanity' is not 'zero, unless you love not, and claims to love all 'equally' are tantamount to not loving at all. If you are confronted by a fellow naked sweaty ape that actually claims to love all 'equally' then my best advice is to run.

Speaking of love, I'd love to hear an example of a process in the universe that is not driven by the concept of gradient.

Another observation, evident in the universe, is that the universes laws tend to act in a manner which consume all local gradients.

Hot and cold becomes warm.

Motion, via friction, becomes heat, and then, see above.

The universe appears, at least in our current branch of existence, to be running from a condition of intense gradient to a future terminus in which everything -- everything that exists -- will be a dim, grey, 3 deg K uniform field of cold, inanimate matter. The ultimate stasis. (Whether some other unknown physical process, such as a contraction of that universe, results in a renewed domain of gradient as King is a question for the future.) Yet where we now exist as life in a still vibrant universe is among a diversity of gradient still driving process, where life itself is dependent on the existence of gradient, gradient is indeed King; gradient drives everything of interest(unless our interest is a static universe of dim 3 deg K matter.)

So, how does this fact of existence in the universe, as it is, impact our economies?

Our economies are overflowing with examples of gradient. This is evidenced by the very crude mathematical models that pretend to model economies; there are literally terms of gradient inevitably found in all of the serious models, not just simple magnitude or amounts of parameters, but the rate of change of those parameters with respect to other parameters.

Wealth and poverty is an example of gradient.

Earning and spending is an example of gradient.

Effort-at-risk and risk-free-effort is an example of gradient.

Running uphill and running downhill is an example of gradient, and is especially applicable to our economies.

It is hard to run uphill, it is easy to run downhill, and yet, if we all make no effort to run uphill, then we will all be at the bottom of the hill, and although 'equal,' we will be equal only in stasis at the bottom of the hill.

There are gradients of opportunity, and if you compare those gradients over time, it is clear that even those gradients are changing over time(a gradient of gradient...)

There is the literal dirt simple gradient of geopolitical two dimensional earth surface growth over time. If you were to view a historical time series of political maps drawn on the surface of the earth over hundreds of thousands of years, you would see little until very recently, when change would be rapid, and we call that 'modern history.' Depending on what time scale you zoomed in and viewed these maps, you would notice periods of varying rates of change (gradient) in the distribution of colors on the map. You would see, for example, various stages of near stasis juxtaposed alongside of various stages of rapid change/gradient.

Not that humanity is mold, but humanity is biological, and you would see mold growing over the surface of an orange, but an orange that had only partial skin/rind/land mass.

One of the latest such development waves was 'the New World' which is presently a quaint reference to what used to be a developing North America. In the US, we put our last star on the flag over 50 years ago. We are generations from being 'the New World.'

There are still pockets of development waves, in India and China, but there is something brand new, as well; the end game of two dimensional dirt simple geopolitical gradient in the world. It is also a characteristic-- unavoidable happenstance -- that as the limited surface 2D growth paradigm reaches its end game, our technological range -- the distance over which we can effectively conduct command, control, communication and commerce -- is more than overwhelming the surface of the planet, completely consuming dirt simple gradient at an accelerating rate as we near the end game. Like mold on the surface of an orange, we eventually reach the end of the orange peel, but unlike mold on the surface of an orange, as we do, we have reached it faster and faster. at an accelerating rate towards the end.

This is not a nefarious scheme by the Bilderburgers, but the inevitably confluence of progress and a limited 2D surface planet.

Think about the history of mankind and the consequences of the 2D growth paradigm. Our technological range was once limited by how far a man could walk in a day. Our tribal structures and areas of influence were limited in size, but there was always geopolitical pressure to grow our tribal structures; the area under our control grew as our technological range squared, but the distance to and the length of border of that area only grew as our technological range. Resources thus always tended to grow faster than the costs of defending/claiming those resources from competing political/tribal structures. This influenced the shape of our geopolitical/tribal structures, as it was most efficient to defend/govern/control more circular domains (with the lowest ratios of border to area)and least efficient to defend/govern/control more slender or meandering domains(with the highest ratios of border and/or distance to the border to area.) This fact of nature is a kind of geopolitical 'pi.' Unless there are structural geographic aids, such as mountains or natural divides, geopolitical regions tend to be 'blobs' and not 'streaks' because blobs are more efficient to defend/govern than streaks, for a given technological range of command, control, communication, and commerce. It's just easier to be 'blobs' and so, nations are 'blobs.'

Why are nations like Chile an exception to this observation? Because of the Andes Mountain Range.

Within a given nation, there was a natural gradient of markets from the capital to the border/frontier. There was also push back at the border from neighboring geopolitical tribes. The border is where gradient was strongest.

"Globalization" has been not a nefarious plot, but a consequence of the fact that, as we reached the end game of 2D surface development with diminished frontier, this end game has not slowed down the technological increase in effective range of command, control, communication and commerce. Our quaint geopolitical borders remain, but our technological range now complete overwhelms them, jumps over them, and in fact, dominates the planet.


Increasingly, there is no more dirt simple frontier. There is no more dirt simple geopolitical growth paradigm, for two reasons: 1] The surface development wave has newly swept the planet and 2] our technological range now exceeds the circumference of the planet we are; that is the true source of 'globalization.'

In this new reality, there are still plenty of frontiers, but unlike the days of dirt simple 2D geopolitical frontiers, the new frontiers are all exclusively intellectual in nature, and the cost of admission is increasingly more specialized education. There were always intellectual frontiers, but there used to be other fundamentally different types of frontiers in addition to intellectual frontiers, and this new 'decreased gradient of types of frontiers' is impacting global economies. Especially because of the accelerating rate as we neared the end of this 2D surface development paradigm, the end game is resulting in a kind of grinding of the gears, as humanity is largely failing to broadly paradigm shift. It is resulting in increased disparity between those taking advantage of gradient in the modern frontiers, and those dealing with stasis in the old frontiers.

Again, not the nefarious plot of the Bilderburgers, but a consequence of consumption of gradient.

One of two things will happen in the future; the tribe will broadly recognize that the nature of gradient is key to the health of our economies, or not, and if not, will try to (futile, in my opinion)target a brand, new paradigm in the universe based on stasis as the underlying foundation. (Homeostasis is not really stasis, as it is a balance between competing gradient; stasis is a dearth of gradient. Homeostasis requires gradient, is not a choice without gradient. Stasis is always a choice, but is devoid of gradient, and the universe is missing any examples of processes or life without gradient.)

How does the tribe restore diversity of opportunities(gradient of gradient)if we are at the historical end game of 2D surface based development?

In fits and starts, and success is not guaranteed. In fact, effort at risk is unavoidable in the universe. All that is certain is, without that effort, we slip back to stasis, and stasis s certain death.

JFK tried. He had a clear vision. Mankind, pausing once again at the edge of a broad gulf, looked up at the stars. And for a very brief moment in mankind's history, over 50 years ago, at the very cusp of putting the last star on the flag, JFK looked at the Moon and declared, "We are going to the Moon." And in short order, we did.

Going to the Moon was not about putting 12 sets of footprints on a distant dusty plain. It was about the restoration of gradient(and, what a gradient.) Literally, a gravity gradient. But as well, a gradient of opportunities. For 12 men? Sure. But the gradient of that intense human effort reached all the way back to Bethpage, to Huntsville, to Cape Canaveral, to Houston, to Los Angeles. The gradient of opportunities spread across many industries, and the economic results are still driving economies today, 50 years after the intense effort. The intense push in microelectronics, for one, gave us microprocessors, which rapidly exploded, creating the entire PC and smart device explosion that drive economies even today. The advances in aeronautics and avionics, navigation, satellite services and communication, environmental monitoring, all have that intense focused human effort in the 60s as their foundation. It was mankind's attempt to reinvigorate gradient that created this massive economic explosion of humans struggling to go uphill, to make a focused effort, to go somewhere, to do something hard -- in JFK's exact words, "We choose these goals because they are hard."

What are the less obvious benefits of that reinvigorated gradient? That same technological range that used to drive 2D surface growth paradigm had a quality about it. Even if sparsely and in fits and leaps, as technological range grew, so did the frontier, proportionately, as our domain grew by that range-squared(area.)

In a new 3D growth paradigm, even if sparsely and in fits and leaps, as technological range grows, the frontier will grow as that range -squared, and domain by range-cubed!

As well, and we have a hint with the Internet about this fact, as mankind fills that domain with technological range fueled command, control, communication and commerce, it is not actually necessary for mankind to physically travel throughout that domain in order to benefit from that domain. The reason for that is, the ability to share intellectual content transported at the speed of light. The Internet totally dominates and overwhelms the thin, 2D surface of the earth, and the concept of point-point free flow of intellectual content will just as easily fill an ever expanding volume/domain.

This is true of purely intellectual content today, but we are at the Kitty Hawk stages of transporting even physical objects across distances, certainly in the following sense; imagine if it was possible to manipulate local matter at the atomic level. (We are definitely at the Kitty Hawk stages of that technology.) If we then transmit just the intellectual content necessary to describe any object between point A and B, we can in effect recreate an object at A at point B. Said another way, the UPS of the future may no longer be hauling actual mass across the nation(or galaxy), but instead, be long hauling the intellectual content necessary to reproduce that arrangement of matter from an encryption/encoding capability at Point A to a decryption/decoding capability at point B.

Imagine a development wave of actual human beings expanding into this new 3D growth development wave. When they leave earth, the current level of technology is at 'level 1.' When that wave reaches a certain point in the future, the new current level of technology is at 'level 2' and is defined by the cumulative experience in the volume of that expanding development wave, and can be shared throughout that volume. This means that even the leading edge of the development wave redefines itself as it expands. As this '3D Internet' fills the galaxy with mankind, it is not restricted to the space/time state of technology that existed when it left the earth. As well, the expanding domain/volume increases the sum of mankind's resources, especially human intellectual resources.

Most importantly -- as evidenced by JFK's experiment with the Moon effort -- the immediate benefits to mankind, even here on earth, are enormous, simply by making the effort.

Where does that new 3D development wave end?

It doesn't. Not until the end of the universe.

Some species, somewhere, will achieve this dynamic. In order to do so, it will need to survive the end game of its 2D surface growth paradigm. It will need to survive it's technological adolescence. It will need to solve this ultimate problem of gradient in the universe.

And when it does, the reward will be that the universe will be theirs. Not just the universe of space, but of time as well.

It may not be we naked sweaty apes. But...we are so damn close to realizing this. It wasn't a technological limitation which is keeping us from taking our children out this very night in 2012 to inspire them, to watch them look up and view the lights of the new colonies on the Moon. It was purely a political tribal choice. Instead, some said, "No, we must address the problems that we have right down here on earth."

Well, how has that worked out? Where is that going?

After 50+ years of Great Society, ask a graduating college student today "What is it that this nation does today that inspires you?" (ie, motivates them to make the effort to run uphill?) Their blank response will shock and shame anyone who was alive during JFK's 60s in America.

Let's be clear. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo was a $2B/yr program for ten years back in the 60s. What is it that the US federal government does today that is giving our economies anything near that bang for the buck, considering that most of what is actually happening in today's economies is directly attributable to the effort that resulted from those programs back then?

Gradient still drives everything. Including our economies. If we don't intelligently plan for gradient, gradient will find us; wars, natural disasters, plague, famine. All negative gradients that drive economies.

We've got to be smarter then that, if we want to inherit the universe; that is some intelligent filter, gravity.