Jurassic Park

Nogle gange finder man inspiration fra helt uventede kanter, denne gang fra Jurassic Park.

Det skete for mig i sommers, hvor jeg læste bøgerne Jurassic Park og The lost World. Jeg kendte filmene, men bøgerne havde jeg aldrig skænket en tanke. Min kommende svigermor anbefalede dem, da matematikeren Ian Malcolm, I ved ham her:

I bøgerne bruger mere tid og energi på kaosteori.

Hun havde naturligvis helt ret, den slags var lige noget for mig. Ud over blot at være underholdende og to virkelig gode historier, var der et par passager, jeg virkelig tog til mig. Dem skal vi lige kigge lidt nærmere på i dagens indlæg. Hvem havde troet, at Jurassic Park kunne bidrage til økonomisk uafhængighed?

Den første passage er fra bog nr. 1, Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park

Følgende er et uddrag fra bogen. Det er gået galt, dinosaurerne er brudt ud og vores ven, kaosteoretikeren, er kommet galt afsted med benet og har en samtale med Hammond, manden der har skabt Jurassic Park:

Hammond came into the room and said, “How is he?”

“He’s holding,” Harding said. “A bit delirious.”

“I am nothing of the sort,” Malcolm said. “I am utterly clear.” They listened to the radio. “It sounds like a war out there.”

“The raptors got out,” Hammond said.

“Did they,” Malcolm said, breathing shallowly. “How could that possibly happen?”

“It was a system screwup. Arnold didn’t realize that the auxiliary power was on, and the fences cut out.”

“Did they.”

“Go to hell, you supercilious bastard.”

“If I remember,” Malcolm said, “I predicted fence integrity would fail.”

Hammond sighed, and sat down heavily. “Damn it all,” he said, shaking his head. “It must surely not have escaped your notice that at heart what we are attempting here is an extremely simple idea. My colleagues and I determined, several years ago, that it was possible to clone the DNA of an extinct animal, and to grow it. That seemed to us a wonderful idea, it was a kind of time travel—the only time travel in the world. Bring them back alive, so to speak. And since it was so exciting, and since it was possible to do it, we decided[…]”

“you made them and you therefore think you own them; you forget that they are alive, they have an intelligence of their own, and they may not do your bidding, and you forget how little you know about them, how incompetent you are to do the things that you so frivolously call simple.… Dear God …”

He sank back, coughing.

“You know what’s wrong with scientific power?” Malcolm said. “It’s a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails.”

Hammond said, “What is he talking about?”

Harding made a sign, indicating delirium. Malcolm cocked his eye.

“I will tell you what I am talking about,” he said. “Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it is your power. It can’t be given[…]”

“the power, like any commodity. The buyer doesn’t even conceive that any discipline might be necessary.”

Hammond said, “Do you know what he is talking about?”

Ellie nodded.

“I haven’t a clue,” Hammond said.

“I’ll make it simple,” Malcolm said. “A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands. He does not lose his temper and kill his wife. The person who kills is the person who has no discipline, no restraint, and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special. And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits. And that is why you think that to build a place like this is simple.”

“It was simple,” Hammond insisted.

“Then why did it go wrong?”

…

At gøre sig fortjent

Når jeg læser dette, så sidder jeg tilbage med tanken om, at det ikke blot handler om målet, men også vejen. Dette er helt i tråd med rejsen mod økonomisk uafhængighed. Der er ganske enkelt forskel på, at arbejde for noget og gøre sig fortjent til det og så at få det foræret. At få 5.000.000 kr. og at opnå at have 5.000.000 kr. igennem arbejde og investering er det samme slutresultat på papiret, men mellemregningen er vigtig, vejen til målet har en stor betydning.

At opnå noget der kræver disciplin, er med til at ændre noget i en selv. At få det foræret uden disciplin er simpelthen ikke det samme. Således er det at blive klogere på og udføre de tre punkter i rigdomsformlen:

• Tjen mere,
• Forbrug mindre %
• Investér

Vigtigt for udviklingen af et mindset og en del af at blive et friere menneske. Frihed og ansvar følges ad, hvilket også er det forfatteren beskriver med eksemplet om karatemesteren.

Netop sammenhængen imellem frihed og ansvar er noget en af mine helte Hayek har beskæftiget sig med. Se eksempelvis dette essay:

• Ansvaret er mit, ikke dit

Her står:

“Det er netop fordi, at ansvar udspringer af den personlige frihed, at mange mennesker flygter fra friheden – og dermed også fra det individuelle ansvar. De vil hellere intet ansvar have eller højst dele et kollektivt ansvar, idet begge disse byrder er lettere at bære. Men frihed og ansvar er, som den østrigske økonom og filosof F.A. Hayek gentager, uadskillelige. Troen på ansvar går side om side med troen på personlig frihed og kan derfor også kun gives til voksne, myndige personer.”

Dermed er den eneste måde at blive ansvarlig i forhold til egen økonomi synonymt med friheden til at forvalte den og dermed også disciplinen til at anskaffe den.

Tænk over det…

Næste passage er fra bog nr. 2, The Lost World.

The Lost World

Der er endnu en gang tale om et uddrag og denne gang er scenen, en scene. Vores ven, kaosteoretikeren, holder et foredrag om sammenhængen imellem orden og forandring og deres indflydelse på udryddelse:

Of the self-organizing behaviors,” Ian Malcolm said, “two are of particular interest to the study of evolution. One is adaptation. We see it everywhere. Corporations adapt to the marketplace, brain cells adapt to signal traffic, the immune system adapts to infection, animals adapt to their food supply. We have come to think that the ability to adapt is characteristic of complex systems—and may be one reason why evolution seems to lead toward more complex organisms.”

He shifted at the podium, transferring his weight onto his cane. “But even more important,” he said, “is the way complex systems seem to strike a balance between the need for order and the imperative to change. Complex systems tend to locate themselves at a place we call ‘the edge of chaos.’ We imagine the edge of chaos as a place where there is enough innovation to keep a living system vibrant, and enough stability to keep it from collapsing into anarchy. It is a zone of conflict and upheaval, where the old and the new are constantly at war. Finding the balance point must be a delicate matter—if a living system drifts too close, it risks falling over into incoherence[…]”

“He paused. “And, by implication, extinction is the inevitable result of one or the other strategy—too much change, or too little.”

In the audience, heads were nodding. This was familiar thinking to most of the researchers present. Indeed, the concept of the edge of chaos was very nearly dogma at the Santa Fe Institute.

“Unfortunately,” Malcolm continued, “the gap between this theoretical construct and the fact of extinction is vast. We have no way to know if our thinking is correct. The fossil record can tell us that an animal became extinct at a certain time, but not why. Computer simulations are of limited value. Nor can we perform experiments on living organisms. Thus, we are obliged to admit that extinction—untestable, unsuited for experiment—may not be a scientific subject at all. And this may explain why the subject has been embroiled in the most intense religious and political controversy. I would remind you that there is no religious debate about Avogadro’s number, or Planck’s constant, or the functions of the pancreas. But about extinction, there has been perpetual controversy for two hundred years. And I wonder how it is to be solved if – Yes? What is it[…]”

Det stabile vs. det ustabile

Her føler jeg mig først og fremmest fristet til lige at snige et mentalt billede ind.

Yin og yang. Et af mine absolut yndlingssymboler og et aspekt jeg har brugt mange timer på at beskæftige mig med.

Det handler om balancen imellem det konstante og stabile på den ene side og det forandrende og ustabile på den anden. Balance indeholder begge dele, som Ian Malcolm kommer ind på. Taoismen handler netop om at gå på balancen imellem disse to modsætninger, “the way of the Tao”.

Det er faktisk også grundlaget for simpel investering. På den ene side, skal vi have noget ustabilt og risikofyldt, noget der genererer et afkast, men som også er mere volatilt. Dette er aktierne. På den anden side skal vi have noget stabilt og roligt, noget der sikrer balancen ved at glatte volatiliteten ud, således, at vi ikke lever i konstant kaos. Dette er obligationerne.

At finde vores risikotolerance er at finde vores balance imellem aktier og obligationer. Det stabile og det ustabile.

Yin og yang.

Det er også dér min store anke imod at søge at kontrollere økonomien og samfundet som hele fra centralt hold kommer ind i billedet. Det forhindrer den naturlige balance ved at introducere manipulation. Holdes den lav har det en mindre effekt, højnes manipulationen, har det en større effekt. Hvis vi holder os til økonomien og balancen i investeringer, så har verdens centralbanker manipuleret renterne så meget, at obligationsmarkedet er stort set ødelagt. Dermed er det meget svært at opnå den balance, der er nødvendig som investor. Det gælder både private og institutionelle. Mit bud er, at rigtig mange investorer har langt mere risiko i deres portefølje, end de reelt er komfortable med og for institutionernes vedkommende, end de kan tåle at tabe. Et meget manipuleret marked ødelægger balancen. Fjernes det stabile, så vil kaos tage over og hvem ved, hvad der gemmer sig på den anden side af kaos?

…

Tænk, at man kan få den slags filosofiske tanker ud af at læse et par bøger om dinosaurer.