Core Topic: What Contributes to a Healthy Living Environment?
Especially How Christian Values contribute.

Present: AB (host), JC, XZ, NO, TB, CA, NB
Apologies: RG
Typed in by AB during discussion and tidied up from audio recording 24 March 2021.

Contents of Discussion 4, on What Contributes to a Healthy Living Environment?:


"#" indicates a distinct point or sub-point, or where a different speaker contributed.
*** = an important point - but not all important points have ***; some in bold = time on recording

[In square brackets] is things that were not actually said during the discussion. These include:
[words added that the speaker seemed to imply]
[words replacing what was actually said, maybe because unclear]
[z4nn identification numbers for reference]
[Asp: How Dooyeweerd's aspects might relate to this; see below]
[AB: comments added by AB during typing or tidying up e.g. of how Dooyeweerd's aspects or Christian thinking might apply. Often they might indicate AB's own discovery of new ideas, but whether they are new or useful to others is another question!]

----- Start

# Welcome Xia Zhu (XZ) - interested in Xn Value.

# JC: QuestScope, Kirk Rhodes

# AB: Define Healthy living environment (HLE): Healthy, nmeaning not just biological and physical health, but healthy in all aspects, and environment being both human beings and the rest of creation, and living so that we can live.
# We won't argue about terms here; e.g. could be called shalom. CA, is this what you had in mind [CA had suggested the term]?
# CA: Yes, its about the whole of ecology, everything together.


--- NO had sent through three questions.

# NO qns:

  • nq1. What do we want to try to measure at the end of the day [z401]: just business enterprises, peoples actions, government responses? Or is it too early to put any bracket around that? Depending on target, we might come up with different method of valuing. Our measurment should not end up as dollars. e.g. time [see NO's suggestion in Z3]. Primary qn, but maybe limiting at this point.
    [Asp: Target type might be of different aspects, which are the target aspects of our quantitative-analytical functioning]

  • nq2. Are we trying to measure all acts or just charitable acts? e.g. service r.t. self-centredness. e.g. manufacturing plants: cellophane and corny dods. How to get to grips with that? Each have a different ecol footprint. But each could be required to perform a certain amount of charitable acts. [z402]
    [Asp: aspects cover both]

  • nq2 Will this be mandatory or voluntary - or other? If we putting xn values around the economy, will this be a kind of rating agency that rates businesses, organisations, etc., or a kind of task force like the Bloomberg, or disclosure requirements that companies have to respond to?
    # AB: What you are saying: at the end of this, do we want this to be something that people have to [comply with].

  • nq3 Will it be possible for secular organizations to accept input from a Christian viewpoint? AB: Do you mean a yes-no question of whether, or do you mean "how can we make it acceptable to secular organisations?" NO: First question I had in mind was the first (Would they just reject it out of hand?), but I like the second, "how can we make it so they'll listen?".
    # JC: lot of ways to use language to [make faith principles acceptable].
    # TB: Chat: [Useful summary of those]
    1) Who are we measuring? Businesses, people, non-profits, government agencies, all of these?
    2) Will this be mandatory or voluntary - or other?
    3) Will it be possible for secular organizations to accept input from a Christian viewpoint?

    --- Problems of metrics / measuring / accreditation

    # TB: whether "metrics" is right word to use; or whether "accreditation" - or an approval tag. [z403][word]
    # They [who?] may have the flexibility, certainly accreditation has the flexibility, to decide what is positive about an organisation, that is unique to them that might not have been detected by a metric. [z404]
    # TB: Disadvantage of metrics: they are often fiddled to get the top score. e.g. module evaluation questionnaires. [z405]
    # NO: USA: Joint Commission on Accreditation, a private organisation that rates hospitals, nursing homes, etc. They send out a person to survey, making very detailed evaluation. BUT what happens is the insurance comparies will look at these to see whether hospitals certified by this. In some cases, you cannot get a contract, or pay severe penalty, if not JCo certified. [z406][unintended consequences of measuring]
    # one way to address this problem is to create a certification [but he's just said accreditation makes problems; must mean something different]
    [Asp: lingual, juridical]
    # JC: in architecture, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) accredication is very strong in USA. An example of where an assumption of environmental impact are brought into accreditation and certification. Buildings must be LEED certified.
    # TB: sent link to LEED.
    # JC: also sent link, probably also to LEED.
    # 10-15 years ago world shifted that buildings needed to be environmental.
    # Younger generation [environmentally conscious]. [z407]
    # Architects able to sell their services as "We will build you a LEED building." Companies responded, "Yay, this is better for environment." A way to take previously ignored variables into account. [z408]
    # JC: Would that be a way to take variables into account? What are we measuring, what do we think? To what do we apply it - supply chains, gardents, airports, etc.?

    # NO: return to question of what are these things. But helps me und where could we end up.
    [TB sent link] NO: Thanks Jordan and Tim.
    # AB: Even asking NO to ask his questions has raised some useful stuff.


    --- Formative and Reflective Constructs

    [CA had mentioned that distinction in an email to AB. AB had looked them up on Internet and found the distinction to be widely known - and sensible. But ]
    # AB: CA, Plz explain - formative versus reflective constructs.
    # Several people not know about them; are they specific to [the field of] economics etc.?
    # NO: [he said that just before nq2] Not come across formative v reflective distinction (about variables); more familiar with direct and indirect variables.

    # CA: Formative construct: How does Christian values like grace, love, generosity, how do these transform into actions? contribute to helping the environment? HLE? e.g. how does the value of generosity transform into action? By the practise of giving. Then how would that contribute to the HLE.
    # [Reflective construct] So the end result we are looking at is the measurement. Now, how do we measure to see whether the HLE (Healthy Living Environment) has taken effect? Based on what we have put in. So, for example, ROI:
    # [Both:] What have we put in, and what would be the output, as a result of that? ***

    # CA: So, for the HLE, we have put in practise of giving, coming from the Christian values, and then what would be our measurement scale, which would be the Reflective one, to measure, to say that we have done it, we have done something [successfully or not]. [z409]
    # e.g. we could look at charities, e.g. for children. Some take the money given to them, and they help difficult families etc. that is helping one child not to be at work to go to school perhaps. - the measurement scale in this example (of practice of giving) could be the number of funds, that bring them out of poverty and send them to school.
    [Asp: ethical]

    [AB: Useful point 1. I like that: a practical way to consider applying Christian values to HLE: both 'cause' that forms it, and effects by which we can measure and know and evaluate.] *** [z410]

    # AB: so youre talking about effectiveness?
    # CA: First you have the Christian values, then you have the actions we take that might help the environment, then now how to measure that skill, the output. # This depends on the [type of] action. e.g. I am giving to charity and this is helping increase the number of soup kitchens etc. to eradicate.

    # AB: What's the point of this? Is this for when we need to account for things?
    # CA: As said before, the price has to equate to value. *** If price equates to value, then it becomes more meaningful.
    [What becomes more meaningful: the price, the thing valued? I assume it is the price that becomes more meaningful, because value and meaning are already closely linked. AB]

    [AB: Useful point 2. This is good when we want to measure the impact of what we are doing from our Christian values. This raises question: Why do we want to measure? e.g. to evaluate the effectiveness of our activity driven by our values. This in turn raises question: why do we want to evaluate? And what are the repercussions of doing so? - we saw some problems of measuring above.] *** [z411]
    [AB: But it focuses on the measurement ("reflective") side (which of course is the topic) and not on the "formative" side of how Christian values "form" HLE. That is for ANOTHER DISCUSSION. *** Discussions 6, 7, 8 discuss this.]

    # CA: I should be able to come to a point, where I say, if I follow Xn Values, and want to help the environment, e.g. recycle, then that act should not be expensive for me. Because if expensive then it is not in line with my values. My values is telling me I have to do it, but the price is so expensive that I can't afford to do it. So now it becomes that price is not equal to value any more. It dis-equivalent to value. *** [z412]
    # So Now everyone has the situation: for example, if I want to be vegan, it might be expensive - so can I do it or not?

    [AB: Useful point 3. How price comes into this. How price encourages or discourages the actions that, inspired by Christian values, contribute towards HLE. That seems to link back to the formative side. Raises question: is price really so simple as that; does that assume people are purely rational economic actors? How to take other (extra-economic) aspects into account? Can Dasgupta help? Or maybe RG's ideas of using aspects?] *** [z413]

    --- Systemic-Societal Frameworks

    # JC: The first discussion, Govert suggested that the economic aspect should be efficiency rather than frugality.
    [Asp: economic]
    # CA is hitting on "the tradeoffs of where efficiency is the individual participation with the overall societal framework that incentivizes those activities. So individually it might have been more expensive at this point now to be vegan, but the efficiency that we can create on a systemic level, would allow systems to be like that, just like different certifications allow different things to be incentivized [Asp: pistic], so that systemically things are addressed for the individual. It's like how do we move and think and where we put our scope down to say "These Christian values we can measure, prioritize and create both measurement systems to see"." [z414][role of societal/systemic frameworks, and the transience of price] ***
    # The efficiency is the rub. So we're exploring how do we gain better shalom efficiency? [z415]

    # "When AB four years ago shared how his church talks about environmental issues, and he said flippantly said "I'm sure your church talks re environmental" - well, it never does. Western American evangelical or calvinistic churches, it doesn't happen. There's such a synchronicity or our own cultural norms within the church that it doesn't happen, so there's going to be a bi-i-i-ig examination of of what norms we think we are saying as Christians that should be fit into this shalom index." [z416][Christian culture, need for rethink]***
    [Asp: pistic]

    --- Pareto Efficiency [z417] ]

    # CA: What we have talked about so far. I remember Govert was mentioning efficiency. What I like about economics, is because we have what we call Pareto efficiency. [16.38 clock time]
    # e.g. Look at "the bad has to be taxed, the good has to be given subsidies." We have all these things that have happened. But we need to fine tune that. When we talk about the whole of econmics, we are mentioning Pareto Efficiency. This says: I only do something only if it benefits both me and it benefits you - both of us.
    [Asp: Probably juridical with a bit of ethical, but masquerading as economic]
    # You can be a company, government, country, anyone. But it has to benefit everyone. Then we can go ahead with that; that's basically economics.
    # Or, it can benefit me but it may not benefit you, but you are not worse off. You are stagnant, constant, not-moving. Still we can go ahead with that.
    # But we cannot go ahead when it's worse for me and worse off for you, or it's better off for me but worse off for you - then we cannot go ahead.
    So this is how the economics build on / so we have quite a lot of good things that are actually going on, like /
    AB: [broke in to check the name: Pareto Efficiency; he had not heard it above]
    # JC: Your countryman, Andrew Smith, has a lot to do with that.
    # JC: That framework - thank you CA for instroducing that - that does give a little bit of a lens.
    # JC: [Going beyond, expanding Pareto Efficiency from a Christian perspective *** "And if we're trying to say, 'Is there a third option, an 'other'.' When you're looking at that framework for 'Does it affect the 'other'?' for efficient use of funds, or activity (let's try to keep money out of it at this point; we're trying to get beyond or through or with, with money [z418][beyond money]) -
    # "What is it that other weighted variable or weighted variables that should go in to expand [Pareto]

    'If it harms X, we shouldn't do it; If it increases stewarding the environment or creating shalom, then we should do it.'

    "I think maybe adding that layer in efficiency decisions, instead of just population human decisions - if we can just figure out a way to say 'This range of variables feed into the environmental impact of the decision, we can move into a space there."
    [Asp: aesthetic aspect of harmony: harmonizing the transaction with environment. But with hints of ethical, in sacrificing for 'the other']
    # JC: Actually , the final Reith Lecture was talking about how we have more data on a macro scale and we see how people react so that we can benefit others that we do not know. So it's moving into that space of "What is that other range that we can measure?" But your framework is right on. Trying to understand that. [z419]
    [Asp: ethical]
    # So if we can nest this within that, AB, I think it would help everybody. [Yes, it certainly helps me, esp. now I have listened and properly transcribed]. That framework, expand the range of whatever the variables that affect that decision.
    [AB: Clarify: JC talks about "the other". He seems to mean two things, (a) other people or environmental things; (b) other variables that have been ignored so far (externalities?) The next bit seems to be about externalities.]

    --- Externalities and Responsibility [z420]

    [Asp: Strong juridical aspect for responsibility]

    # JC: Is that OK? CA, am I seeing that thread accurately?
    # CA: When you said what are the variables that fit into that space, what examples are we looking at?

    # JC: Example: "Processing power to create a transaction verification [emerged from concern that Bitcoin [z421] etc. are consuming huge amounts to power, and contribute 1% of total climate change emissions currently; see below]. What is the processing load to verify that something happened. It can range from a month-and-a-half of home heating, to a simple energy pulse that is an email. So it's [we need] understanding what is the veracity of information you require that causes this level of processing power - to justify your interacting, or my interacting, in this way?"
    [Asp: Processing power, greenhouse gas emissions: physical. But it is juridical that makes it bad - injustice to LDNs, future generations, God's earth]
    # JC: "So I and society make decisions based on cultural norms that assume those decisions. But right now there are new technologies that are having a much higher economic or environmental impact [z422], and people not assessing that at all [z423]." [end of example]

    [AB: Does that also bring in the important responsibility-oriented perspective of our activity or wishes having repercussions for which we need to take responsibility? This raises the question: Is my desire/need/wish for xxx (e.g. to justify something) worth the damage that ensues? This in turn raises the question: on what basis to judge that? ] [z424]***
    [AB: D: I believe Dooyeweerd's aspects could help there.]

    # AB: How does that relate to efficiency? # CA: the gap
    # JC: The gap is knowledge. The gap is "I don't care". The person that participates in, let's say, a NFT transaction (Non-Fundable Token Transaction)

    # NO: I think the gap is there is, there is no market impact for that [z425]. The economic gap is there is no real penalty. We have the Environmental Protection Agency etc., but they're relatively new on the scene.
    # JC: Good point: there is no penalty on one form of transaction compared with another. But burgeoning market for justification of this much higher energy-consumptive model. [z426][irresponsibility] ***
    [Asp: juridical]

    # NO: So I think we're dealing with two different problems.
    # Q1: One is the problem of knowledge, of moral responsibility [z427] (eco-responsibility if you will) and the healthy living knowledge, the idea that there are direct and indirect impacts.
    # Q2: The other issue is (hate to use this word) monetize [z428] that, put that into an economic condition. That's another question.
    [AB: c.f. Dasgupta Review [z429]: answers that question to a first stage - though not fully]
    [Asp: quantitative, lingual for monetization]

    # NO: If the whole world were Christian we might have all the problems we do today. [Laughter] JC: We would still have all the problems! NO: I have hope!
    # NO: Which is by the way one thing I wrote to AB about. As Christians, we bring faith and hope to these questions - at least that is what I'd like to believe, because we see a bigger context to things. we see a creator and guidance from the creator. [z430][xn contribution]

    # AB: [To clarify and summarise the above] In what was said above, is it the environment that is missing from the pareto transaction? In deciding whether to make the transaction between X and Y persons, good or bad for each, in addition to that there is the environment and the transaction may be bad for the environment even when it's good for both. So, if you like, there's a third factor there that, the environment - not necessarily the natural environment (could be anything else). It that what you were saying is missing from Pareto Efficiency? *** [z431][environment; Pareto]
    # JC: yes, that is what I am talking about.
    # Maybe stick with ecological environment [Asp: biotic]; moral systems [Asp: ethical, juridical] would be a whole different environment. Environmental impact. This is hard.

    # JC: Just being involved in this conversation, I am washing out bags (recycling). Two children, so a lot of washing: am I using a lot more water?
    # AB: What I see, JC, is that an attitude of responsibility is building [z432] up in you. I found the same. My example: CA going mainly vegetarian during Lent, and Ruth and I decided on the basis of that, that we would eat no meat during the 40 days of Lent. That's brought in a sense of responsibility and made us think: what recipes can we find that will vary our diet.
    # TB: I did the same: not eating meat during Lent. Yes, it does bring a responsibility.
    [Asp: ethical self-giving]

    --- Attitude [z433]

    [Asp: strong ethical aspect for attitude]

    # JC: With humility [z434] though. This is the problem that, to abase this term, the secularisation of this is "I am better because I am more environmentally conscious; I am more ecologically conscious because I have a Tesla, I am vegan, etc." Christ did not do anything us so that we could be better; Christ did things for us so we could love, serve others better. So it's just like: Where is that goodness, that shalom that can be lifted? Even in the smallest decisions. [z435][love, humility, Christ] ***
    # (AB: Not secular that thinks they are better; it's the pharisees.)

    --- What Should and Should we Not Measure?

    # JC: is there a way to define what we want to experiment on and what we should not measure, and look forward to what we could measure?
    # AB: [A very important question ***] RG raised this. I suggest we discuss that later, and today discuss how Christian values lead to HLE and how we might get some ideas on measurement. I suggest we have that discussion next week [time]. [ANOTHER DISCUSSION]

    --- Christian Values [z436]

    # NO: CA has listed service, grace listed as xn values. Both can be manifested in charitable acts. Charity is a xn value that we can ask people about, and measure. We do that now, e.g. charitable contributions.
    # But how do we get justice, joy, faith etc. into economic relationship? [Important question] [z437][non-measurables?]***
    # CA: Chat: Christian value - generosity
    # AB: Lets think how they might contribute to HLE or shalom.
    # CA: Chat: actions- practice of giving
    [AB: Note: NO and AB were thinking about different constructs: reflective and formative respectively. AB did not understand at the time of typing - and he was so busy typing he did not notice the chat messages! ]
    # CA: Chats: contribute to healthy living environment; reflective; no of children charity or no of soup kitchen.
    [Asp: ethical]

    # NO: I do have a thought /
    # AB: Choose one of the values.
    # NO: Example: Was thinking about looking at either faith or justice. If you said that people take a personal mentor relationship, e.g. in business or community.
    # She says faith is a real depth in relattonship of all kinds. That would give some indication of engaging in a relationship that requires some depth.
    # Or justice: if you mentor someone who is disadvantaged, then if you elevate that person, you contribute to [HLE].
    # So then your time and effort would be something tangible that we could measure.

    # NO: two problems here: economic, spiritual, If you mentor somebody in knowledge and spirituality and get them to realise they can make difference, that is providing a Christian value to the community.
    # JFK quote, "One person can make a differnce. And everyone should try."
    # CA: Really good point. It's trying to say that everybody can have an input into the economy. [z438][everyone]
    # e.g. a farmer in Ghana he has something to the table, a contribution to the economy, a positive contribution in this sense.
    [econ: lets expand to shalom]
    # CA: So our actions, after the xn values, our actions could be econmic actions that we have taken. That could contribute to the HLE. Then the output - I know we don't like the GDP and all this - we have other measurements like Gini Coefficient, which is talking about living conditions and the wellbeing of people. So that could be the measurement skill.
    # TB sent link for Gini Coefficient. Chat: Found a crash course on Gini coefficient here for the engineers!

    --- Taking Stock

    # AB: Having listened to the above, I wonder whether aspects, Dooyeweerd's aspects might help. At several points in the discussion I felt "Ah, aspects could help there." e.g. harm and good.
    (# NO: Chat: Tim - superfast man! - in response to TB's Gini link!)
    (Laughter) (discussion of who was doing what!)

    # AB: To do - find out where aspects could help. =====

    # AB: Take Stock. Raised a number of issues not properly dealt with before. It feels we have not just gone round in circles; we have progressed.
    # AB: XZ have you listened?

    --- Multi-aspectual Healthy Living Environment

    # XZ: Yes, interesting about Healthy Living Environment. [z439][shalom]
    # My New phd student, working on a project (proposal) responding to Covid-19 research call. Studentships I put forward is that I would like to look into the people - place relationship.
    # XZ: In marketing we have the term, Servicescape - the light, the layout and ambience of place and how that impacts on consumer or customer decision-making behaviour etc. So I was quite interested in how relationship between people and place may change in the post-pandemic context. So my new PhD student is looking into the ServiceScape topic. It gives me a lot to think about. Hopefully I can bring Christian values into it. It's not just people-place but also people-people relationships. And I'm guessing - depending on what we mean by HLE - maybe shopping environment, commercial environment, etc. I need to think a lot about these. Very helpful; thank you.
    [Asp: HLE: spatial, social, psychical, economic]
    # JC: Chat: hmmmm... expanding the "servicescape" of the perato efficiency model which would include environmental variables?

    [NB joined -- 10 mins ago]

    --- Christian Value: Kindness [z440]

    # AB: Back to Christian values and how they contribute to HLE.
    # AB: Example: kindness. [Note: AB did not realise that kindness is not in the original list suggested, but it is part of the Fruit of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5:22,23. The earlier set is not deemed complete, but just a good set to start from.]

    # AB: Kindness, or its opposite unkindness. A bit of self-giving, goodwill. And when we're kind to somebody, as opposed to unkind, then that makes people feel good, able to trust, and breaks down barriers. probably also helps people physically, economically, and helps people feel a sense of dignity. That's just off the top of my head, so: being kind helps all those things.
    # Maybe, if we think in terms of Dooyeweerd's aspects, it is the ethical aspect, self-giving love. Helps people to feel loved, sense of self-worth (faith aspect). [If we're kind] we don't take advantage of people (juridical aspect). People feel a sense of harmony (aesthetic aspect) between people.
    # Does that make sense? It's an attempt to think, How does kindness contribute to a HLE.

    # NB: Paradox of grace [z441]: When I act kind towards others, it improves the environment in a way that benefits me. So my giving of myself to others is actually for my own benefit in the end. But if I approach it with the reason I'm being kind is so that others give to me, then it isn't truly kindness and it doesn't work. So it has to be genuine self-giving, and when it is, it turns around and benefits me too.
    [Asp: ethical]
    # AB: [Discovered NB joined us, and welcomed him; he had been her around 10 minutes]
    # CA: Kindness must from the heart, then it becomes genuine. Example: maybe I not interested in environment, and I recycle etc. At first I do it out of annoyance, but then later on I realise it is changing me. It takes up my time, I have to do the extra effort here, but it's actually changing me in the end. So we can look at it from that perspective as well.
    [Asp: pistic for heart]
    # CA: Because the system is already in place, that sort of changes me in the end.
    [That was mentioned earlier.]

    # NB: [who?]==== has written a lot that what we do, our behaviours [z445], change what we think, quite a bit more than we think changes our behaviours.
    # And that's easy for us academics are happy to accept; we like to think that the brain leads and our behaviours follow. But evidence shows otherwise.
    # NO: A great segway to Aristotle's nehomichian-depth[could not work out the words!] of ethics, where he said the virtuous man becomes virtuous by doing virtuous acts. So I would say you're probably right: our behaviour is unfortunately gets into habits, which might be good or bad.
    # NO: Comment on CA on kindness thing: I have a question whether anyone has read Heidegger's essays on the questions of technology? # JC: yes [also AB] NO: There you go; got the same book [in response to a chat?]

    --- Technology [z443]

    [Asp: technology is primarily formative aspect]

    # NO: the technology will be both a blessing and a curse, in what we like to do with Xn values here, because this thing [technology] is changing the behaviour of people, including my son's behaviour etc.
    # NO: Re accreditations: Unfortunately, I think, in Communist China, with Google's help, they have developed an App where they monitor people's behaviour and they institute rewards or merits depending on how they are following Party doctrine. We could just as easily develop a Christian app and / [I think NO was going to say that's a bad thing]

    # JC: That's the Reputation Index [z444] that's driving activities to formulate cultural norms in an oppressive environment.
    # NO: I'll check that out.
    # NO: In my opinion, the horse is out of the barn, and we won't change technological interacton. e.g. Even in Patagonia children play Angry Birds.
    # AB: Says something about us, that we're surprised, r.t. about people in Patagonia.
    # NO: Well, I guess so. Not that I'm looking down on them but in an area that technologically challenged, the kids have figured out they can play this game. AB: When did that finding come out? NO: An observation from someone I know who took a vacation there: He was riding from the station on a horse-drawn cart and the kids there saw his device and asked if he would bring up Angry Birds for them.
    # AB: Interesting: Says something of nature of technology. We've been through years, even centuries, of technological development and so we think where we've got to is advances. Whereas actually it's a very short trip. It might be advanced technologically but as a gameplay, it's a very simple concept.
    [Asp: aesthetic for games; maybe it's because the aesthetic aspect is not reducible to the formative that it can be "advanced" technology and yet simple as a game.]

    # NO: Change from where I grew up: still there are businesses here. E.g. in healthcare industry in USA, one of the key compoinents is being able to collect your bill. It's a complicated process, the reimbursement process. There are departments that do nothing but collect money. There's now software and what they do that collects bills but it's structured as a game; so the person who's collecting bills, they get little credits and they can trade those or take them to the company store, and they have a contest each day on who collected the most, or who got the best result. [z445]
    [Asp: technology is formative, targeting juridical paying of bills, capitalizing on aesthetic aspect of enjoyment and fun in human functioning]

    # Everything is going to the game format because the young people are used to playing games all the time.
    [asp: aesthetic]
    # AB: It's not just young people. Book, 'The Jesus family in Communist China' about a Christian community in China soon after Mao came in. They tried to live the life of CHrist, e.g. no revenge. The elderly men were given a task of killing flies, and were told to count number of flies. The person who killed most each day or week could receive reward. It was commented [in the book] that none of them ever cheated; they always gave the true numbers. Even there, elderly men loved playing games.
    [Asp: young and old: social aspect and a bit of biotic]
    # NB: Says something about our psychology. Gamification. Business processes are turned into a game, in a way that appeals to something pretty deep in human nature, that likes participating in that kind of activity. [z446]
    # It's a form of psychological manipulation. To me the question is "Am I manipulating myself - in which case I'm in favour of it - or is someone else manipulating mer - in which case I get real grumpy real fast."
    # NB: Even the manipulating myself can be problematic, if the only way I can get myself to do what I ought to do, is to trick myself into it, that's not right.
    # NO: Deep point. Would like to think about that some more.

    # NO: If we took this issue with Christian values (e.g. reputation index?) and put it out and made it a game you would have an amazing impact.
    # NB: Something about that, feels it could be dangerous. "I've got 57 kindness points; what's your score today?" It would miss part of the holistic shalom we're going for.
    # NO: I think you're right. But if you're be a crude practical person, you would say "So what!"
    [AB: Exekiel 16:49 - Unconcern was deeply condemned by God, so much that he destroyed Sodom and exiled Judah because of it and its companion attitudes.]
    # AB: Like the men in the Chinese village, they saw it as a game but they didn't treat it as competition or negative.

    # NO: But look what's the first thing we tried to do with carbon: we sold carbon credits. The first thing we do is turn it into a market.
    [Asp: "turn it into" is belief-as-meaningful-as, pistic]
    # AB: A lot of people over here, when the EU started doing that, very critical of that [carbon pricing, trading] for various reasons. Including the thing we said right at the beginning that if we start measuring something then people begin to work and plan according to trying to get a good measure. I don't know what's happened to the carbon market in the EU; it might have been scrapped.
    # NO: We still have it in the USA.
    # NB: The question becomes whether that market is driving what we consider desirable behaviour. If the trading in carbon credits, down the road, results in less carbon being emitted, then the market's functioning the way it ought to. If people have gamed the system so that people are trading carbon credits so that there's not actually any beneficial less carbon being released then the market has become a game that is separate from reality. Not doing us any good.
    [Asp: Inter-aspect dependency: economic serving ethical/juridical or undermining them] [z447]

    # NO: Mariana Mazzucato has talked about how the financial world is financializing behaviour, that does not really correspond to real economics, in the old classic sense. The reason we had the crash of 2008 is largely because we had this incredible collateralization and financialization of a variety of financial instruments that were completely detached from the mortgages they represent. And the house of cards came crashing down. [z448][financializing]
    # The point is: I agree with NB; If it's a well-run market, then the outcome will probably be good.
    [AB: what means a well-run market?]
    [Asp: juridical dysfunction in treating things as they ought not to be treated; injustice to the nature of reality]

    # NB: Similar issue going to come up with cryptocurrencies [z449]. Bitcoin is basically a way of turning electricity into money. Spending huge electrical resources which eventually means environmental ones, not really producing any value. What you get from that electricity isn't making anyone's life better. [z450][shalom]
    # So I'm not clear where the economic benefit of cryptocurrency mining comes in. Where others can trade things but there's definitely cheaper ways to accomplish that.
    # AB: That relates to "What is a Good?" People trading inflated things caled Bitcoins and so on. Sounds to me like people trading futures.
    # JC: Chat: I would love to chat with you about that idea nick
    # AB: Please send it round [when you have chatted].

    --- Ending

    # AB: have we achieved enough of today?
    # NO: Praise God for your Pareto Framework.
    # NB: Apology; I showed up
    # Discussion of time zones: 5:30 pm = 11:30 (NO, NB: CST), but 12:30 in North Carolina (JC: EST)

    # AB: Would you be happy if I was to take some of the xn values, the individual ones in CA's list and think about how they might contribute to a HLE? CA, where did you get that list from?
    CA: From the Evangelical Alliance.
    # AB: I think we could add some of Dooyeweerd's aspects to those.
    # AB: Will try to tidy up these notes and put them up, and try to get the recording sent round. Is everyone happy for me to send it round to the whole group?

    # JC: By.
    # TB: Sent
    # AB: Close in prayer. Father God, thank you that we can discuss these things from a Christian perspective. Thank you for openness and fruitfulness. Jesus, thank you for being our Saviour and Lord, so that we can gear our lives towards you, and so that if we make mistakes we can be forgiven. Father, may Jesus be glorified in all this and may your kingdom come.
    # XZ: Bye.

    ----- end

    [SJ: offer the benefit as sacrifice to lord, as a give - the secret of sust. even nontangible benft eg goodcfeeling, it comes fr0m lord; so we need to give it back to lord eg by thankyou, or by sharing - sj =====]

    Created: 25 March 2021. Last Updated: 31 August 2021 added contents.