Since no subsystem of the world is causally closed, all positive feedback loops have externalities. By definition, the outside world is only directly affected by these externalities, and is only affected by what happens within the boundary to the extent that this eventually leads to externalities. A wise designer of a positive feedback loop will anticipate its externalities, and set it up such that the externalities are overall desirable to the designer. After all, there is no point to creating a positive feedback loop unless its externalities are mostly positive.
I’m confused by this paragraph; the standard economics definition for externality is “the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit” (Wikipedia); so I’m interpreting externality here to mean effects that leak out through the boundary to the outside world. But why then “there is no point to creating a positive feedback loop unless its externalities are mostly positive”? You don’t need the effects of the feedback loop that leak out of the boundary to be overall positive; it’s enough for the effects that remain within the boundary (which are the ones that you capture) to be overall positive. After all the standard economics definition for “externality” is something that isn’t directly relevant for the agents causing the externality, but you seem to be using the term to refer to something that the agents constructing the feedback loop do need to take into account.
I’m confused by this paragraph; the standard economics definition for externality is “the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit”
This is not the definition I’m using.
I’m interpreting externality here to mean effects that leak out through the boundary to the outside world
This is the definition I’m using.
You don’t need the effects of the feedback loop that leak out of the boundary to be overall positive; it’s enough for the effects that remain within the boundary (which are the ones that you capture) to be overall positive.
The things that happen within the boundary, other than the externalities, are epiphenomenal. They could still be important because e.g. they contain moral patients, and I guess my statement was wrong because of this fact. So I edited the relevant sentence.
Got it. The way you used it in a sentence without specifically defining it first, and after having referenced economics earlier, made it unclear whether it was supposed to be understood in the economics sense or not.
I’m confused by this paragraph; the standard economics definition for externality is “the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit” (Wikipedia); so I’m interpreting externality here to mean effects that leak out through the boundary to the outside world. But why then “there is no point to creating a positive feedback loop unless its externalities are mostly positive”? You don’t need the effects of the feedback loop that leak out of the boundary to be overall positive; it’s enough for the effects that remain within the boundary (which are the ones that you capture) to be overall positive. After all the standard economics definition for “externality” is something that isn’t directly relevant for the agents causing the externality, but you seem to be using the term to refer to something that the agents constructing the feedback loop do need to take into account.
This is not the definition I’m using.
This is the definition I’m using.
The things that happen within the boundary, other than the externalities, are epiphenomenal. They could still be important because e.g. they contain moral patients, and I guess my statement was wrong because of this fact. So I edited the relevant sentence.
Got it. The way you used it in a sentence without specifically defining it first, and after having referenced economics earlier, made it unclear whether it was supposed to be understood in the economics sense or not.