Chapter 4 Chapter 1 Ireland's Rebel Heroes

Similar questions made Arthur very confused.How could they not see it?The point should be that you have to see the world as it is, rather than using elegant theories to explain how the world should be! Brian Arthur sits alone at a table by the bar, gazing out the window, trying to ignore the commuters who arrive at the pub for an early happy hour.Outside the window, in the concrete canyon of Financial Street, the typical San Francisco fog is turning to a drizzle.He didn't think it mattered.On the evening of March 17, 1987, he was neither in the mood to admire the copper furniture, ferns and stained glass, nor to celebrate St. Patrick's Day (Saint Patrick's Day, originated in Ireland A holiday at 2019), and not in the mood to party with a bunch of fake Irishmen in green trim.In his anger, he just wanted to drink beer quietly by himself.Arthur, the Stanford University professor who was born and raised in Belfast, Northern Ireland, was at rock bottom.

At the beginning of the day, everything was beautiful. This is the most ironic place.When he set off for Berkeley that morning, it was with anticipation that he saw the journey as a triumphant reunion: the return of the alumni in their best clothes.He really missed his time in Berkeley in the early 1970s.Berkeley is located on the hillside north of Oakland, facing the San Francisco Bay. It is a vibrant place, and the streets are full of people of all races and crazy ideas.In Berkeley, he received a Ph.D. from the University of California, and married a blond girl named Susan Peterson, who studied statistics; The first year of postdoctoral research.Since then, no matter where he lives or where he works, the place Arthur most wants to go back to is still Berkeley.

Well, now he is home.It wasn't a big deal at first, it was just a lunch with the dean of Berkeley's economics department and a former professor of his.However, this was the first time in years that he had returned to the department, and the first time he felt that he was on an equal footing with them in academic standing.He has worked for twelve years around the world and is primarily known for his research on fertility rates in the Third World.He is now returning to Berkeley as an honorary professor of economics at Stanford University, which is rarely awarded to scholars under the age of fifty; Identity has returned to its alma mater!And who knows?Those at Berkeley might even start talking about bringing him back to work.

ubiquitous new thought Yes, that morning, he was really smug.So, why doesn't he stick to mainstream economics instead of trying to create a new economic view?Why didn't he just play his sure cards instead of taking part in this vague, half-imagined scientific revolution? The reason is that there is no way he can get these thoughts out of his head because they are almost everywhere.Scientists themselves hardly know what's going on, but after spending three hundred years dissecting everything into molecules, atoms, nucleons, and quarks, they seem to have finally turned the process over and over again.So they stopped looking for the simplest possible ingredients on Earth and started looking at how those parts fit into complex wholes.

He could see the biology world moving in that direction Scholars have spent two decades uncovering the molecular structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid), proteins, and all the constituent elements of cells, and now they are beginning to grasp this fundamental mystery: trillions of cells like this How do molecules assemble themselves into objects that can move, react, replicate, and have life? He could see brain science moving in that direction Neuroscientists, psychologists, computer scientists and artificial intelligence researchers are trying to understand the nature of the mind: How do the billions of tightly connected nerve cells in our skulls generate feelings, thoughts, intentions and consciousness?

He could even see the physics community moving in that direction Physicists are still struggling to understand the mathematics of chaos, the intricate beauty of fractals, and the strange inner workings of solids and liquids.Therein lies a subtle mystery: simple particles obeying simple laws, sometimes exhibiting the most shocking and unpredictable behaviors!Why do simple particles organize themselves into complex structures like stars, galaxies, snowflakes and hurricanes?As if they had a hidden desire for organization and order? Change, surprise and complexity There were signs everywhere, and Arthur couldn't describe it in words.So far, it can be said that no one has a way to make it clear.However, he could sense that the problems were all the same.

There is a new, integrated science about to be born. Arthur believed that it would be a rigorous science, as hard as physics, and like physics, grounded in the laws of nature.But this science is not about elementary particles, but about constant change and the formation and disintegration of forms; this science does not ignore all that is different or unpredictable, individuality and the accident of history will have a place .This science is not about single things (like particles), but about complexity. Arthur's new economic outlook is relevant to this.There was a world of difference between the concepts of traditional economics and complex science that Arthur had learned in school.Traditional theoretical economists, seemingly endlessly, discuss market stability and the equilibrium of supply and demand, and then rewrite these concepts into mathematical equations and prove their theorems.They believed in the dogma of Adam Smith (Adam Smith, 1723︱1790) as the gospel of the state religion.

But when it comes to economic instability and change, they are deeply disturbed and sometimes avoid talking about it.But Arthur had long accepted the uncertainty of the economy.He once told his colleagues, look out the window, whether you like it or not, the market is not stable, the world is not stable, but full of evolution, turmoil and accidents, and economics must take changes into account.Now, using what is known as the law of increasing returns, he believes he has found a way to analyze it. Why are high-tech companies competing to locate in Silicon Valley near Stanford, rather than in Ann Arbor or Berkeley?Because there have been many technology companies in Silicon Valley in the past, so inference, of course the result is so.As another example, why does VHS outperform VHS even though the Beta video system is technically better than the VHS system?Because more people originally bought VHS video recorders, more movies were recorded on the VHS system in video tape stores, so more people bought VHS video recorders.And so on, the result is like this.

The list goes on and on.Arthur believes that the law of increasing returns points to the future direction of economics, and he and his colleagues will work side by side with physicists and biologists in their quest to understand the mysteries of the chaos, turmoil, and self-organization of the world.He believed that the law of increasing returns could become the basis for a new and very different economics. Alone But unfortunately, he had no luck in convincing others.Economists outside Stanford's circle mostly found his thinking strange.The editors of academic journals told him that this increasing returns thing was not economics.In academic seminars, he even angered many audiences: this guy has the audacity to say that the economy is not in equilibrium!Arthur was bewildered by these violent reactions, but it was clear that he needed allies, someone who would open up and listen to him.And that's one of the reasons he went back to Berkeley.

So, they sat together in the Berkeley faculty cafeteria that day and ate sandwiches.His teacher, Tom Rothenberg, couldn't help asking him this question: So, Arthur, what research have you been doing all this time?Arthur gave him a four-word answer: increasing returns.Hope this opens up the topic.However, Al Fishlow, dean of the Berkeley economics department, stared at him blankly: However, we all know that increasing returns simply don't exist. And, even if it does exist, we don't acknowledge it.he grinned. Then, they laughed together, nothing malicious, just a family joke.Arthur knew it was just a joke and it wasn't a big deal, but that laugh somehow shattered his vain expectations.He just sat there, speechless.Here are two of his most respected economists, and they just can't listen to him.Suddenly, Arthur felt naive and stupid, as if he didn't know enough to know that he shouldn't believe in the Law of Increasing Returns at all.He couldn't take it anymore.

Next, he barely noticed what the others were saying.After lunch was over and everyone said their goodbyes, Arthur climbed into his old car and drove across the San Francisco Bridge into San Francisco.He took the first exit and parked next to the first tavern he saw.And then walk in here, sit among a bunch of ferns, and really think about giving up economics altogether. About the time he had finished his second glass of beer, Arthur noticed that the pub was getting very noisy, with office workers thronging in to celebrate the birthday of the patron saint of Ireland.Well, it's almost time to go home, and there's not much to do here.He got up and went out to drive. It was still drizzling in San Francisco. Arthur's home was in Palo Alto, which was thirty-five miles south of San Francisco, near the suburb of Stanford.When he drove into the house, the sun was already setting.He must have made some noise, and Mrs. Susan opened the front door and watched him across the lawn: his figure was thin, his hair was premature, and he looked disheveled and bored just as he was in his present mood. Susan stood in the doorway and asked: How is it in Berkeley?Do they like your idea? He replied: Sucks, no one believes in increasing returns. Susan hadn't seen Arthur come home from an academic debate before, and she tried to find something to comfort him: I guess if everyone believed you from the beginning, it wouldn't be called a revolution, Yes or no? Arthur looked at her, transfixed for the second time.Then, couldn't help laughing. The development of a scientist If you were raised Catholic in Belfast, it was natural to be a bit rebellious.said Arthur in a soft, high Belfast accent.Not that he ever felt repressed; his father was a bank manager, and his family was strictly middle-class.The only church door fight that ever happened to him was when he was coming home one afternoon in his mission school uniform and a group of Christian boys threw rocks and bricks at him, one of which hit him right in the forehead.Blood from his forehead seeped into his eyes, making him almost invisible, but he threw the brick back anyway.He didn't think Christians were devils. His mother was originally a Christian, but she converted to Catholicism after marrying his father.He wasn't even particularly interested in politics, he was more interested in ideas and philosophy. No, this rebellious personality is something you catch in the air.Irish culture doesn't teach you to lead, it teaches you to sabotage.The heroes of Ireland are all revolutionaries.The pinnacle of heroism is leading a hopeless revolution, then delivering the greatest speech of your life from the dock of a courtroom before being hanged.Arthur said: Appeals to authority have never been of much use in Ireland. He added that, in a curious way, the Irish rebellious nature had driven his academic career.Catholic society in Belfast looked down on intellectuals, so naturally he became one.In fact, he remembers wanting to be a scientist when he was four years old, before he even knew what a scientist was.There seems to be a strange and mysterious magic about this idea.But with this thought in mind, young Arthur would have been unknown had it not been for determination. Soon, he was studying engineering, physics, and studying math at school.In 1966 he obtained a BA in Electrical Engineering from Queen's College in Belfast.You're going to be a professor, I guess, his mother said.In fact, she felt very proud that no one in her family had ever gone to college in her generation. In 1966, that same determination drove him across the Irish Sea to graduate school at the University of Lancaster in England, where he majored in operations research, a mathematically intensive form of engineering. study.Basically, it's a set of techniques for figuring out how to get the most out of a factory with the least amount of resources, or how to keep a fighter jet under control when it comes under unexpected attack.At that time, the situation of British industry was very bad. I thought that maybe through science, we could find the problem and correct it.He said. But in 1967, because it was really unbearable for the pretentious attitude of the professor at Lancaster University, (Arthur's imitation of the British snobbish look: Well! It would be nice to have an Irishman in the department , can add a bit of character.) He left England to study at Michigan State University in Ann Arbor.As soon as I set foot on the ground here, I immediately felt like coming home, he said.This was the 1960s, and the people here were very open, the culture was very open, and the science education was second to none.In America, it seems like anything is possible. The Thrill of the McKinsey Experience Unfortunately, one of the things that was impossible in Ann Arbor was being close to the sea and the mountains that Arthur loved so deeply.Therefore, starting from the fall of 1969, he transferred to Berkeley to study for a Ph.D.In the previous summer, in order to earn tuition fees, he applied for a job at the world's top management consulting firm McKinsey & Company. His luck was surprisingly good.Only later did Arthur realize how lucky he was!Many people were vying for the opportunity to work for McKinsey. As a result, McKinsey saw his unique background in operations research and German.They needed someone to work in Düsseldorf and asked if he would be interested. This was the golden age in Arthur's life.The last time he was in Germany, it was for a summer job at seventy-five cents an hour.Now look at him, twenty-three years old, advising the board of directors of a major company like BASF on how to deal with the woes of the oil and gas sector, or the billion-dollar fertilizer sector.What I've learned is that jobs at the top are just as easy as jobs at the bottom.he said with a smile. But the experience didn't just feed his ego.Basically, McKinsey sells American management skills.A typical European company at the time had hundreds of branches, and they didn't even know which branches they owned.Arthur found that he was very good at digging into these kinds of messy questions and then getting straight to the core of the problem.He said: McKinsey is absolutely first-class, they do not sell theory or popular management techniques.Their approach is to immerse themselves in complexity so completely that it literally blends into life.McKinsey teams work with a firm for five or six months, or even longer, to drill down into the entire complex until patterns start to emerge.We all sit at the table, and someone will say: the problem must have happened because the other will say: then it must be because of this.Then we'll go out and test what we just found.Or maybe the local director of the company will say: You're almost right, but you forgot this and this.So, we spend months clarifying the situation, and clarifying the situation, until all the problems are solved and the answers are self-evident. Arthur didn't take long to understand.The elegant equations and fancy math he'd studied in school for years were little more than tools, of limited utility, when faced with real-world complexities.The most important thing is to have the insight to grasp the ability to relate.Ironically, this is how he entered the field of economics.He vividly remembers the moment when he and his American boss, George Taucher, were driving one evening through the Ruhr Valley, the industrial heartland of Germany, before he was about to leave for his studies in Berkeley.Along the way, Tao Qi started talking about the history of each company they passed, who had owned that company for a hundred years, and how the whole place had gradually evolved.For Arthur, it was a revelation from heaven.It suddenly dawned on me that this was economics.If he wanted to understand the chaotic world that fascinated him, if he wanted to make a real difference in people's lives, he had to study economics. Turn economics into physics? So, after a summer of knowledge, Arthur set off for Berkeley.Knowing nothing about economics, Arthur announced: He wants to study economics! In fact, he didn't intend to switch to other disciplines so late.He has already completed most of the required courses for the Ph.D. Specialized.However, now that he has plenty of time, the University of California insists that he must stay in Berkeley for three more years to meet the required number of years for a Ph.D. Therefore, Arthur can use the extra time to take all his courses. The economics course you want to take. But after working for McKinsey, I was very disappointed here.This is nothing compared to the historical dramas that fascinated me in the Ruhr industrial area.He said.In the Berkeley classroom, economics seemed to be nothing more than a branch of pure mathematics.The basic economic theory known as the neoclassical school simplifies the rich complexity of the whole world into abstract principles that can be written on a few pages. The entire textbook is full of equations. Young talents in economics seem to spend their careers in Betting on proving one theorem after another, regardless of whether these theorems have any connection with the real world.Arthur said: "I'm amazed at the level of emphasis they put on maths.For me, a person who studies applied mathematics, theorems are describing unchanging mathematical truths, rather than overpacking some originally insignificant observations. He had to think that these theories were oversimplified.He is not opposed to the accuracy of mathematics; he loves mathematics, and after spending so many years studying electrical engineering and operations research, his mathematical foundation is much more solid than other students who are studying economics together.What really bothered him was how unrealistic it all was.These economists who play with mathematics have succeeded in turning their learning into something like physics, without any human frailty and emotion in the theory.Their theory describes humans as some kind of elementary particle: Homo Econ is a fairy-like figure, always able to reason perfectly, always pursuing predictable self-interest.Just as a physicist can predict how a particle will react to different forces, an economist can predict how Homo Econ will react in any economic situation: he (or it) will maximize economic efficiency. Similarly, in the eyes of neoclassical economists, the economy is always in perfect equilibrium, supply is always exactly equal to demand, the stock market is always oscillating between booms and crashes, and no company is big enough to monopolize the entire market.And the magic of a completely free market makes everything work out in the best interest.This view reminded Arthur of the European Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, when philosophers regarded the universe as a huge clock machine, which operated very regularly according to Sir Newton's laws.The only difference is that economists seem to see human society as a well-oiled, well-oiled machine run by the invisible hand of Adam Smith. Academic upstarts Arthur just wouldn't eat this set.Yes, the free market is great, and Adam Smith is a very smart guy.In all fairness, neoclassical theorists have extended their basic framework to include issues such as uncertainty about the future, or the transfer of property rights between generations.Their theories can also be applied to every issue that other economists can think of, from taxes, monopolies, international trade, employment, finance, to monetary policy, everything is included.However, none of this can shake Arthur's fundamental assumption: neoclassical economic theory still cannot describe the chaos and abnormality in the human world that Arthur saw in the Ruhr industrial area, or saw every day on the streets of Berkeley. reason. Arthur wasn't completely silent.I think I clearly showed my impatience with theorems, and demanded to learn real economics, which pissed off several professors.He said.He also knew he wasn't the only one thinking this way, and he could hear similar complaints in the corridors of any economic meeting. But neoclassical economic theory also has its beauty that Arthur marvels at.As masterpieces of knowledge, neoclassical theory is on a par with Newton's or Einstein's physics.He who loves mathematics has to be amazed by the rigor and precision of neoclassical theory, and he can also understand why the previous generation of economists are flocking to it, because he has heard some horror stories when economics was just mature. In the 1930s, the British economist John Maynard Keynes (John Maynard Keynes, 1883︱1946) said that you can put five economists in the same room and get six different opinions.Judging from various reports, he said this is very polite.The economists of the 1930s and 1940s were good at seeing economic phenomena, but they were usually poor at logic, and even if they weren't, they often came to different conclusions on the same problem, and they often relied on different assumptions that were not clearly stated. argue.Thus, academic debates break out between different schools of government policy or multiple theories about the economic cycle. A new generation of economists in the 1940s and 1950s was well versed in mathematical theory and was a radical element in the academic world of the time.The hotheaded upstarts are determined to root out disagreements and turn economics into a science as rigorous and precise as physics.And they almost did, a group of young radicals including Stanford's Arrow, MIT's Paul Samuelson (1950 Nobel Laureate in Economics), Berkeley's Deb Nuo (Gerard Debreu (1983 Nobel Prize winner), Rochester University's Koopmans (Tjalling Koopmans (1975 Nobel Prize winner)) and McKenzie (Lionel McKenzie), they It is also well-deserved to become a master of economics and a new establishment. Besides, if you are going to study economics (and Arthur is determined to study economics), what other theory is available?Marxism?This is Berkeley, and of course Marxism has its followers, but Arthur is definitely not one of them, because so far, he still thinks this class theory of class struggle is ridiculous.There is no way, as the gambler said, this gamble may be fake, but it is the only gamble in the city.So, he continued to take economics classes, deciding to specialize in the theoretical tools of this science that he didn't quite believe in. don't do math for math's sake During this period, of course, Arthur was still working on his Ph.D. thesis in operations research.His advisor was the mathematician Stuart Dreyfus, who was not only an excellent teacher but his kind.Arthur remembers going to Dreyfus's office shortly after arriving in Berkeley in 1969 to introduce himself, and being greeted head-on by a graduate student with long hair and a beaded necklace.Arthur said: I am looking for Professor Dreyfus, do you know when he will be back? I am Dreyfus.In fact, the student said, he was almost forty years old at the time.Dreyfus reinforced what Arthur had learned at McKinsey and continued to detoxify his economics roots.Arthur said: He believed in getting to the heart of the matter.Instead of solving extremely complex mathematical equations, he taught me to keep simplifying problems until I found some manageable parts.The important thing is to find the crux of the problem, find the key factors, and key solutions.Dreyfus wouldn't let him do math for math's sake. Arthur takes Dreyfus's class very seriously.There are advantages and disadvantages.He said slightly sadly.If he later hides the idea of ​​increasing returns in the maze of mathematical formulas, it may be more acceptable to traditional economists.In fact, colleagues urged him to do so, but he refused.I want to make it as simple and clear as possible.He said. missionaries of science In 1970, Arthur returned to Düsseldorf for a second summer at McKinsey, an experience that was just as fascinating as the first.Sometimes, he even doubted whether he should keep in touch with McKinsey at that time, and become a first-class international business management consultant after receiving his degree.Then, he will live a life of luxury. Instead, however, he plunged into a specialized field of economics, studying a problem even more chaotic than industrialized Europe: population growth in the Third World. Of course, this gave him the opportunity to commute frequently for research to the East-West Population Research Institute in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he has a surfboard and can go to the beach to swim in the waves at any time.However, he was actually serious about the issue. It was the early 1970s, and the population problem was getting worse.Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich has just published his apocalyptic bestseller The Population Bomb, and the Third World is filled with newly independent former colonies struggling to survive economically, The field of economics is also full of different theories of aiding the Third World.Typical arguments strongly emphasize economic determinism, arguing that if a country wants to achieve the optimal population size, it only needs to provide people with the right economic incentives to encourage them to control their births, and the people will automatically follow rational self-interest considerations.Many economists go a step further and argue that especially when 3rd world countries become modern industrialized countries (following the western line of development of course), their citizens will naturally undergo demographic changes, automatically reducing fertility rates, as in Europe today The same is true for countries. However, Arthur believed that his analysis was better, or at least more complex: he analyzed the problem of population control using the theory of time-delay control, which was the subject of his doctoral dissertation.It's really a matter of timing, he said.If the government tries to reduce the birth rate now, it will affect the size of schools ten years from now, the labor force in twenty years, the population of the next generation in thirty years, and the number of retirees in sixty years.Mathematically, it is as if you want to control a satellite far away in the outer ring of the solar system, but the instructions are delivered after hours; it is also like adjusting the temperature of the water in the shower, from the time you adjust the faucet to the hot water on your body , there will be a half-minute delay in between.If you don't properly take the time lag into account when adjusting the water temperature, you'll get burned. In 1973, Arthur used population analysis as the final chapter of his doctoral dissertation, which was a tome full of equations, entitled "Dynamic Programming as Applied to Time Delay Control Theory". -Delayed Control Theory).Looking back now, he said with regret: "It's almost from an engineering perspective to look at the population problem, and it's all numbers."Despite all his experience working at McKinsey and being taught by Dreyfus, and despite his impatience with economics that overemphasizes mathematical operations, he still feels the same impulse that attracted him to study operations research in the first place: Let us Use science and mathematics to aid in the functioning of social rationality.Most development economists hold this attitude, he said: They are like the missionaries of this century, except that instead of preaching Christianity to pagans, they are trying to bring economic development to the third world. back to the real world Working for a small think tank in New York called the Population Advisory Council brought Arthur back to reality.He arrived in New York in 1974, after completing his Ph.D. and spending a year as a postdoctoral fellow in the Berkeley Department of Economics.Housed in the skyscrapers of Park Avenue, the Population Advisory Council is physically distant from the Third World, yet the Council funds rigorous research on contraception, family planning, and economic development.Most importantly, from Arthur's point of view, the committee's policy was to encourage researchers to stay away from their desks as much as possible and actually do their research in the field. Chairman asked: Arthur, how much do you know about Pakistan's population and development? very few. Do you want to go and find out? For Arthur, the Pakistan experience was a turning point in his academic career.He arrived in Pakistan in 1975 with demographer Geoffrey McNicoll.McNichol, an Australian who had attended graduate school with him at Berkeley, was the one who initially brought him on the Population Advisory Board.The plane they took was the first plane allowed to land after the armed coup in Pakistan. When the plane landed, the sound of machine gun fire could still be heard.Then, they immediately went to the countryside, asking questions like investigative reporters.We talk to village chiefs, to women, to everyone.We interview and interview, trying to understand how rural society works.In particular, they wanted to find out why rural households still had seven children on average, when modern contraceptives were readily available and villagers were well aware that Pakistan's development had stagnated due to overpopulation. What we found was that Pakistan's dire plight was a combination of individual and communal interests in the village, Arthur said.Since children can work in the fields at a young age, the more children there are, the greater the benefits for any family.And since neighbors and relatives are likely to come and take all the property of a helpless widow, it is in the young married woman's interest to have as many boys as possible early, so that the grown-up sons can protect her when she grows old. Own.So all the benefits add up to cause excess fertility and stunted development. After six weeks in Pakistan, Arthur and McNichol returned to the United States to digest the information they had gathered and to search for more research material in anthropological and sociological journals.Arthur first went to Berkeley and went back to the economics department to find some references.He also remembered that he had just turned to the latest class schedule, which was almost the same as the class he had taken not so long ago.However, I have a strange feeling as though I've been out of the loop for a while and the economics have changed in the year I've been away.Then, it occurred to me: economics has not changed, but I have changed.The neoclassical theorems he had worked so hard to study seemed irrelevant after his trip to Pakistan.I suddenly felt so relieved that I no longer had to believe this set!I feel very free. Arthur and MacNicol's eight-page report, published in 1978, became a social science classic and was almost immediately banned in Pakistan.Because they point out that the Pakistani government has no control over places other than the capital, and the villages are in fact ruled by tribal chiefs from various places, which annoys the dignitaries in Dhaka, the capital of Pakistan. Moreover, the Population Advisory Committee's research in Syria and Kuwait reinforces their argument that the quantitative engineering view (that human beings, like machines, respond to abstract economic incentives) has serious limitations.Any historian and anthropologist will immediately point out that economics is necessarily bound up with politics and culture.It may be obvious, said Arthur, but I just had to learn it the hard way. This awareness also made him give up looking for the so-called decisive birth rate theory, and instead began to regard the birth rate as a part of folklore, mythology and social customs, which will manifest in different forms due to different cultures.You can measure income or birth figures in one country, and find that another country may have the same level of one, but a huge difference in the other, that is, a completely different shape.All things are closely related, and no piece of the jigsaw puzzle can be taken out by itself.The number of children is affected by the way society is organized, and the way society is organized has a lot to do with the number of children. form myth form!Once a breakthrough was made at this point, Arthur made some more discoveries about the recurring forms.Arthur has always been fascinated by form.As long as he can choose, he will sit by the window when flying, so that he can see the ever-changing scenery below.Wherever he goes, he usually sees a few basic elements: rocks, soil, ice, clouds, and so on.Moreover, these basic elements will form a unique landscape form, which lasts for more than half an hour.So, I asked myself, why does that form of geographical landscape exist?Why is there one form of rock formation and meandering stream here, and then half an hour later, another completely different form is seen? 現在，無論到何處，他都開始看到形態的影子。例如，一九七九年，他離開人口顧問委員會去為一個美蘇合作的智庫應用系統分析國際研究院（International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis，簡稱IIASA，系統研究院）工作。這個機構是由尼克森和布里茲涅夫所創立的，是低盪（美蘇緊張關係緩和）的象徵。研究機構坐落於維也納市郊十英里的小村落中一棟十八世紀華麗的狩獵別墅，而且開車不遠就可以到提洛爾（Tyrole）的阿爾卑斯山滑雪坡道。 令我震驚的是，你走進任何一個阿爾卑斯山村落，都會看到這種提洛爾式、裝飾華麗的屋頂、欄杆和陽台，以及提洛爾特有的屋頂斜度、山形牆和百葉窗。亞瑟說：但是，我不是只感嘆這個美麗的拼圖畫面，而是了解到村落建築的每一個部分都有其目的，而且和其他部分相互關聯。屋頂的斜角是為了在冬天剛好能留住適量的雪以保暖。尖形屋頂兩邊伸出的山形牆斜度是要讓雪片不會落在陽台上。所以，看著這些村落，思考這部分是這個用途，那部分是那個用途，及它們之間的關係，成為我的一大消遣。 同樣令他震驚的是，穿過奧義邊境，進入多羅米特（Dolomite）阿爾卑斯山區後，村落的建築風格就完全不是提洛爾式的了，而且找不出一點相像之處。在截然不同的整體建築風格中，點綴著無數不同的小裝飾。然而，義大利村民和奧地利村民面對的是同樣的雪片掉落的問題。經過一段不算短的時間，這兩種文化已發展出截然不同、但彼此不相矛盾的建築形態。亞瑟說。 沙灘上的啟示 每個人都有自己的研究風格，亞瑟說。如果你把研究問題看成有城牆的城市，那麼很多人會像撞牆槌一樣，對問題迎頭痛擊。它們會以知識的力量和耀眼的光芒猛烈攻擊城門，來瓦解守衛。 但是，亞瑟從不覺得這種猛烈的攻擊方式是他所擅長的。我喜歡慢慢思考，亞瑟說：所以，我會在城外宿營，靜靜等待並且思考，直到有一天也許在我轉而研究一個完全不同的問題之後吊橋下降，守軍說：我們投降。問題的解答就乍然湧現。 就後來被他稱為報酬遞增的新經濟學而言，他可是在城外宿營了蠻長的一段時間。麥肯錫經驗、巴基斯坦經驗、對正統經濟學的幻滅、形態，似乎沒有一樣是真正的答案，但是，他對吊橋開始降下的時刻倒是記憶猶新。 創世第八天的玄機 那是在一九七九年的四月。他的妻子蘇珊完成了統計學的博士學業後，疲憊不堪。亞瑟向系統研究院申請了兩個月的休假，以便全家一起到夏威夷好好休息一下。對他自己而言，這是個半工作、半休息的假期。從早上九點到下午三點，他會到東西人口研究院作研究，而蘇珊則繼續睡覺，一天睡十五個小時。然後，傍晚時分，他們開車到歐胡島北邊的海灘，在那裏衝浪、喝啤酒、吃乳酪，還有閱讀。 就在一個慵懶的午後，亞瑟打開了他特地帶來、預備閒暇時閱讀的書：賈得森（Horace Freeland Judson）的創世第八天（The Eighth Day of Creation），一本介紹分子生物學歷史的六百頁巨著。 我迷上了這本書，亞瑟說。他讀到華森（James Watson）和克里克（Francis Crick）如何在一九五二年發現了DNA的雙螺旋結構，他讀到遺傳學法則如何在一九五○和六○年代被打破，他也讀到科學家如何慢慢的解讀有著錯綜複雜旋繞結構的蛋白質和酵素。而身為實驗室裏的呆頭鵝（亞瑟說自己幾乎每次進實驗室，都弄得一塌糊塗），他讀到促使這門科學誕生的那些辛苦的實驗：必須靠實驗來證明的種種問題，事前花費數月的規畫及準備儀器，然後是實驗結果出來時的勝利狂歡或沮喪挫敗。賈得森能把科學的戲劇性表現得栩栩如生。 但是，真正鼓舞他的是，他因此了解到活細胞的內部是個混亂的世界，至少和混亂的人類世界一樣複雜。然而，這是科學。 我了解到自己對生物學的看法一直太天真，他說：像我這樣受數學、工程及經濟學訓練的人，很容易就會認為只有運用定理和數學的學問，才算是科學。但是，當我看到窗外那片充滿生命、有機體和大自然的天地時，我會覺得科學並不存在。你怎麼樣為一棵樹或一隻草履蟲寫下數學方程式？沒有辦法的。我原先的模糊概念是，生化科學和分子生物學只不過是為這個分子或那個分子作的一堆分類，並不能真正幫助你了解任何事情。 他錯了。在書上的每一頁，賈得森都證明了生物學和物理一樣，是科學。這個混亂、有機、非機械化的世界，事實上也有一定的法則可循，而且生物法則和牛頓的運動定律一樣的深奧。在每個活細胞中，都有一個狹長、螺旋狀的DNA分子：一長串的化學密碼、基因，構成了細胞的藍本。每一個有機體的遺傳藍本可能截然不同，但是基本上，他們的基因用的是相同的遺傳密碼，由相同的分子密碼解讀機來解讀，然後在相同的分子工作室中轉化成蛋白質、薄膜或其他的細胞結構。 對亞瑟而言，能夠想到地球上這一切無以數計的生命形式，簡直是上天的啟示。在分子的層次，每一個活細胞都相像得令人震驚，基本的機制舉世皆同，但是，只要有絲毫微小、幾乎察覺不到的變化，就可能在整個有機體中，產生巨大的改變。幾個分子從這裏移到那裏，可能就足以產生像褐眼睛或藍眼睛、體操家或相撲選手、健康的身體或鐮刀血球貧血症的差別。再多幾個分子變換，經過幾百萬年的天擇演化，就可能造成像人類和猩猩、無花果樹和仙人掌、阿米巴和鯨魚這麼大的不同。亞瑟了解，在生物的世界裏，小小的意外可能改變一切。生命在不斷發展，而且有它的歷史。也許這正是為什麼生物世界看起來如此自發的生長、有組織，而且有生命力。 想到這裏，亞瑟隱約明白：為什麼經濟學家想像的完美均衡世界，總是令他覺得僵化、機械化、而且死氣沉沉了。在那個世界裏，發生不了什麼大事，市場上偶發的小小不均衡，依照假設都應該在剛發生時就儘快消失，這一點也不像真實的經濟狀況。在真正的經濟體系中，新產品、新技術及新市場不斷興起，舊的產品、技術及市場則不斷消逝。真正的經濟體系不是一部機器，而是活的系統，同樣具備賈得森描繪下的分子生物學世界中的自發性和複雜性。亞瑟還不知道要如何應用這個見解，但是他的想像力已被點燃。 發現生命萬花筒 他繼續讀下去，還有更多精采內容。亞瑟說：書中最吸引我的是傑哥布（Francois Jacob）和莫納德（Jacques Monod）的研究。一九六○年代，在巴黎巴斯德研究院工作的這兩位法國生物學家，發現少數沿著DNA分子排列的基因能像小開關一樣作用。打開任何一個這樣的小開關，例如讓細胞暴露在某些荷爾蒙中，受到刺激的基因會對其他基因發出特有的化學訊號（或停止發出訊號），結果更多的基因開關會被連串觸動，直到細胞的基因群形成穩定的新形態為止。 對生物學家而言，這個新發現隱含了無窮的意義，因此傑哥布與莫納德在一九六五年一起得到諾貝爾生理醫學獎。這個發現意味著細胞核中的DNA並不只是細胞的藍本，單單指示如何製造這種蛋白質和那種蛋白質而已，DNA事實上是負責整個營建工程的工頭，是一個只有分子大小的電腦，它指示細胞如何自我建構、自我修復及和外界相互反應。更重要的是，傑哥布和莫納德的發現解答了一個長久以來的謎團：受精卵如何分裂成肌肉細胞、腦細胞、肝細胞及其他組成新生嬰兒的各種不同的細胞。其實，每一種不同的細胞都對應一種受刺激的基因群所組成的不同形態。 讀到這裏，亞瑟胸中澎湃著興奮及似曾相識等錯綜複雜的情緒。在這裏，形態又再度出現了。回應外界的刺激，這許多前後一致的形態逐漸形成、演化並改變，這讓他聯想到萬花筒，一撮珠子結合成一種圖案，然後維持這個圖案，直到萬花筒慢慢轉動使珠子突然串聯成新的圖案。只要有一些片段，就會出現無限可能的形態。儘管他無法確切的形容，但這似乎就是生命的本質。 看完賈得森的書後，亞瑟跑到夏威夷大學的書店，蒐購他所能找到的每一本談分子生物學的書。回到沙灘上，他囫圇吞棗的讀完全部的書籍。我迷上了這些書，他說。六月回到系統研究院以前，他完全沉醉在知識的震盪中。他仍然不很清楚，要怎麼把他所領悟到的這一切應用到經濟學上；但是他可以感覺到已經找到了基本的線索，於是整個暑假都繼續不斷的研讀生物教科書。到了九月，在系統研究院的一位物理學家建議之下，他開始挖掘凝態物理（condensed matter physics）的近代理論液體和固體的內部作用。 結果，他和在夏威夷海灘時一樣的震驚。過去，他從來不覺得物理學與生物學類似。事實上，物理並不像生物學，物理學家研究的原子和分子比蛋白質和DNA要簡單多了。但是，當你看到大量的簡單原子和分子彼此互動時，相同的現象出現了：細微的差異產生截然不同的後果，簡單的變化導致令人震驚的複雜行為，一些片段就可能組合成幾乎無限的可能形態。在某種亞瑟不知如何解釋的高深層次中，物理和生物的現象是一致的。 爐子上的熱湯 另一方面，在實際的層面上，兩者又有一個非常重要的差異：物理學家研究的系統比較單純，可以用精確的數學演算來分析。亞瑟突然就覺得像回到家般的自在，即使他過去一直有些疑慮，現在他知道他面對的是科學。他說：這些不只是模糊的概念而已。 他印象最深的是比利時物理學家普里歌金（Ilya Prigogine, 1917︱）所寫的東西。亞瑟後來發現，在許多物理學家眼中，普里歌金喜歡自吹自擂，令人無法忍受。儘管如此，卻不能否認他的寫作極具說服力，也因此，一九七七年瑞典皇家科學院基於他在非平衡熱力學領域的研究，而頒給他一座諾貝爾化學獎，也就不足為奇了。 基本上，普里歌金提出的問題是：世界上為什麼會有秩序和結構？秩序和結構是從哪裏來的？ 當你想到這世界的通性是趨於腐敗時，這個問題就變得不像初聽時那麼單純了。鐵會生鏽，枯木會腐爛，洗澡水會隨周遭的溫度而冷卻，大自然似乎對創造結構沒什麼興趣，而對破壞既有結構，把所有東西混合成一致的興趣更濃。確實，失序和腐敗的過程似乎是不可逆轉的，因此十九世紀的物理學家稱之為熱力學的第二定律，意思也就等於你不能把炒過的蛋恢復原狀。第二定律說，在沒有外力干預的情況下，原子會盡可能的隨機彼此混合。這是為什麼鐵會生鏽：鐵中的原子永遠嘗試和空氣中的氧混合，以形成氧化鐵。這也是為什麼洗澡水會變涼：洗澡水表面快速移動的分子和空氣中移動較慢的分子相互碰撞，而逐漸釋放掉它們的能量。 但儘管如此，我們還是到處看到秩序和結構。枯木腐爛，但是樹木依然成長。熱力學第二定律如何解釋這種結構的成長呢？ 早在一九六○年，就普里歌金和其他學者所了解的是，答案就在那句聽起來平淡無奇的話：在沒有外力干預的情況下在真實的世界衷，原子和分子幾乎從來不會完全不受外力干預，而總是接觸到一些從外界流入的能量和物質。而如果流入的能量和物質夠強的話，那麼第二定律所規範的穩定腐敗過程就有可能部分被扭轉。在有限的範圍內，事實上，一個系統可自發的組成一系列的複雜結構。 大家最熟悉的例子可能就是爐子上的一鍋湯，如果瓦斯爐沒有點燃，那麼不會有任何動靜。正如熱力學第二定律所預測，這鍋湯會在室溫中靜止不動，與周遭環境成平衡狀態。如果瓦斯爐點著很小的火，還是沒有什麼動靜，但這個系統不再成平衡狀態，熱能從鍋底經由湯逐漸上升，只不過溫度的差異還沒有大到真能攪動這鍋湯。再來，現在把火開大一點，使整個系統再脫離平衡狀態一點，突然之間，流入的熱能增強使湯變得不穩定了，湯分子的一些小小、隨意的動靜，已不再因平衡的拉力趨於歸零。它們的活動量開始加大了，流體的某些部分開始上升，其他部分開始下降。很快的，這鍋湯開始呈現大規模的活動，從湯的表面往下看，你會看到一個個細胞狀的對流，液體從每個對流單元的中央升起，又在周邊落下。這鍋湯獲得了秩序和結構，簡單的說，就是它開始滾了。 雷射與颶風的奧祕 普里歌金指出，像這種自行組織的結構在大自然中無所不在。雷射就是個自我組織的系統，光的粒子（光子）能自動組合成一束強烈的光線，其中每個光子都以密集的步伐移動。颶風也是個由源源不絕的太陽能所推動的自我組織系統，能從大洋中呼風喚雨。而儘管活細胞太複雜，無法以數學方式來分析，但活細胞仍然是個自我組織的系統，藉著從食物中吸取能量、排出熱量及廢物而生存。 普里歌金在其中一篇論文中寫道：事實上，可以想像經濟也是個自我組織的體系，勞力需求及商品和服務等需求，自動組織成市場結構。 讀到這幾個字時，亞瑟倏然驚起。經濟也是個自我組織的體系，真是一語中的！儘管他一直不知道要怎麼來說明自己的想法，但這正是他讀了創世第八天以後，日思夜想的概念。Um!普里歌金的自我組織法則，生命體系自發的動力！現在亞瑟終於曉得要如何把所有這些想法運用到經濟體系了。 以事後之明來看，這一切道理再明顯不過了。普里歌金的中心思想是，自我組織要依賴自我強化的力量，也就是當條件符合的時候，小效果的影響力會傾向擴大，而不是衰退。這正是傑哥布及莫納德關於DNA的研究中隱含的訊息。亞瑟說：突然，我了解這就是工程學中我們稱之為正回饋的概念。所以，細微的分子活動演變成對流的單元，溫和的赤道風醞釀成颶風，種子及胚胎茁壯為成熟的活生物。正回饋似乎是變遷、意外和生命本身的必要條件。 但是，亞瑟也了解，正回饋正是傳統經濟學所沒有的，而且事實上，這個觀念還恰好與傳統背道而馳新古典學派假定經濟的世界完全由負回饋所支配，也就是小的效果會傾向衰微。 亞瑟其實還記得過去帶著點困惑，聆聽柏克萊的教授一再重申這個論調。當然，他們不把它叫負回饋，這種衰微的傾向隱含在報酬遞減的經濟學教條中，也就是認為：第二塊糖的味道一定沒有第一塊好，兩倍的肥料不見得會得到兩倍收成；無論任何事情，只要你做得愈多，就會愈來愈沒有效，愈來愈無利可圖，或愈來愈不好玩。而亞瑟也看到最後的結果都是一樣的：就像負回饋使小的混亂不至於失控而瓦解物理系統，報酬遞減也確保沒有一家公司或一個產品會大到霸占整個市場。當人們厭倦了吃糖，他們就改吃蘋果或其他東西。當所有最好的水力發電的地點都已充分利用，電力公司就開始建造火力發電廠。當肥料用得不能再用了，農夫開始不用肥料。沒錯，負回饋與報酬遞減正說明了新古典學派對於經濟的和諧、穩定及平衡的看法。 報酬遞增？ 但是即使在柏克萊時代，工程出身的亞瑟仍然忍不住懷疑：如果經濟體系中有正回饋，又會如何呢？或是套一句經濟學術語：如果有報酬遞增，又會如何呢？ 不必擔心，老師都安慰他：報酬遞增的情況微乎其微，而且即使出現了，也維持不了多久。既然亞瑟並沒有想到什麼特定的例子，他也就把這個想法拋諸腦後，轉而思考其他的問題。 但是現在，讀著普里歌金的書，回憶又如浪潮般洶湧而至。正回饋、報酬遞增也許在現實的經濟體系中確實會發生，也許這也解釋了在他周遭的現實世界經濟體系中的生命力、複雜性與豐富性。 事實上，他想得愈多，愈了解報酬遞增將會對經濟學產生多麼巨大的影響。就以效率為例吧，新古典學派理論的說法是，自由市場總是會篩選出最出色、也最有效率的科技，而事實上，市場的表現也並不太差。但亞瑟很好奇，那麼我們怎麼解釋標準的柯提（QWERTY）鍵盤的排法（QWERTY這個名字是由鍵盤第一行左邊的頭六個字母而來）？柯提鍵盤幾乎為西方製造的每個打字機和電腦所採用，但這是在打字機鍵盤上安排按鍵最有效率的方法嗎？絕對不是。一八七三年，一個名叫蕭爾斯（Christopher Scholes）的工程師之所以會設計出柯提鍵盤的排法，其實是特別為了減慢打字的速度，因為如果打字速度太快，當時的打字機很容易就會卡住。後來雷明頓（Remington）縫紉機公司大量生產採用柯提鍵盤的打字機，也就是說很多打字員開始學習這個系統，這促成許多其他的打字機公司跟進採用柯提鍵盤，所以就有更多的打字員開始學習使用這種鍵盤。亞瑟想，這就是報酬遞增。而現在，柯提鍵盤已經是幾百萬人使用的標準，基本上，已經永遠無法動搖它的地位了。 想想七○年代中期Beta和VHS的競爭吧！雖然很多專家評估，VHS系統在技術上比Beta略遜一籌，但是在一九七九年時，VHS已經很明顯的即將獨霸市場。怎麼可能發生這種事情呢？因為VHS經銷商很幸運的在一開始就搶先占據了稍微大一點的市場，使他們即使在技術落後的情況下，仍然掌握了極大的優勢。錄影帶出租店很討厭每一個錄影帶都要儲存兩種規格，消費者也很痛恨自己買的錄影機被淘汰不用，所以每個人都有比較強的誘因跟隨著市場領導者的步伐，以致VHS占有的市場愈來愈大。報酬遞增再次出現了。 或是再來看看令人無限著迷的形態吧！純粹的新古典學派理論告訴我們，高科技公司會自然的平均分布在不同的地理位置，沒有任何理由會偏好某個地點。但是在現實生活中，高科技公司卻聚集在像加州矽谷和波士頓一二八公路等工業區，以便鄰近其他高科技公司。結果就是如此，而世界也獲得了結構。 事實上，亞瑟突然了解，這也是為什麼在任何系統中都會有形態出現，而正回饋和負回饋混合後必然產生形態。想像你把一點水濺到光可鑑人的盤子上，水珠形成滴狀的複雜形態，因為有兩種均等的力量交互作用著。一是重力想把水展開成表面的一層又薄又平的薄膜，另一是表面張力，那是一個水分子對另一個水分子的吸引力，想要把這些液體凝結成緊密的水滴，這是正回饋。這兩種力量的混合產生了水珠的複雜形態，而且每個形態都是獨一無二的。重做一次實驗，你會看到完全不同的水珠形態。歷史上的小小意外盤子表面極細小的微塵和肉眼看不見的凹凸會因正回饋而放大，成為影響最後結果的關鍵。 歷史的偶然 亞瑟想，也許這是為什麼邱吉爾說，歷史只不過是一樁接著一樁討厭的事件。報酬遞增能把一些微不足道的偶發意外（例如某人在走廊上剛好撞到誰，篷車隊恰好在某個地方停留一個晚上，某處正好設立了商棧，或義大利鞋匠恰好移民到某個地方），擴大成不可扭轉的歷史命運。年輕的女演員純粹因為天分而成為超級巨星嗎？很少如此，卻往往只是因為演了一部熱門的片子，使她知名度暴漲，事業扶搖直上，而其他才藝相當的女演員卻仍在原地踏步。英國殖民者群集於寒冷、多風暴、且多岩石的麻薩諸塞灣沿岸，是因為新英格蘭的農地最肥沃嗎？不，只不過是因為麻薩諸塞灣是清教徒當初下船的地方，而清教徒選擇在這裏下船是因為五月花號迷路了，找不到維吉尼亞作為落腳處。結果就是如此。而他們一旦建立起殖民地，就不會再走回頭路了。沒有人打算把波士頓再搬到其他地方去。 報酬遞增、鎖定（lock︱in）效應、不可預測性、引起巨大歷史後果的小事件起初，這些報酬遞增經濟學的特性令我震驚，但是當我體認到每個特性在我所讀到的非線性物理中都有所對應時，我覺得很興奮。我不再覺得震驚，而變得入迷。亞瑟說。他也逐漸了解，事實上已經有幾個世代的經濟學家討論過這類的問題，但都是孤軍奮鬥，而且力量分散。他覺得好像生平第一次領悟到，所有這些問題都是同一個問題。他說：我發現自己走入阿拉丁的洞穴，一件接著一件的撿拾其中的寶藏。 秋天以前，一切都就定位。一九七九年十一月五日，他把長期思考的心得傾瀉出來。在筆記本的頁首，他寫著：新經濟學和舊經濟學，然後在下面列著兩欄比較： 舊經濟學 ．報酬遞減。 ．以十九世紀物理學為基礎（均衡、穩定、決定論的發展史觀點）。 ．人與人完全相同。 ．如果外在因素都不存在，而且所有可能都機會均等，我們將會到達極樂世界。 ．數量和價格是基本元素。 ．一切事物都處於均衡狀態，不會有真正的變動。 ．認為事物的結構單純。 ．認為經濟學只是一種軟性的物理學。 新經濟學 ．報酬遞增。 ．以生物學為基礎（結構、形態、自我組織、生命循環）。 ．強調個別生命，每個人都是各自獨立而且不同的。 ．外在因素和個別差異都成為驅動力，根本不會有極樂世界，系統會不斷的展開。 ．形態和可能性是基本元素。 ．經濟經常為時間所追趕，它倉促前行，結構不斷的合併、衰敗或變動。 ．認為事物有其潛在的複雜性。 ．認為經濟學是高度複雜的科學。 這一切有什麼意義？ 說亞瑟在這段日子裏因為這個新發現而熱情洋溢，真是一點也不為過。但是沒有多久，他就明白這股熱情欠缺感染力，尤其對其他經濟學家更是如此。我以為如果你做了一件與眾不同而且重要的事情而我確實認為報酬遞增能解釋經濟學中的許多現象，而且指出了我們迫切需要的方向其他人會把我扛在肩膀上勝利遊行。但是，我真是太過天真了。 十一月底前，他走在系統研究院附近的公園裏，對到訪的挪威經濟學家諾曼（Victor Norman）興奮的解釋報酬遞增的道理，卻忽然訝異的發現，在國際貿易理論界享有盛名的諾曼正困惑的看著他，臉上寫著：這一切有什麼意義？ 一九八○年，他開始就報酬遞增發表演講時，也聽到許多類似的反應。一般來說，有一半的聽眾會很感興趣，另一半聽眾的反應則從困惑、懷疑，到滿懷敵意都有。這到底有什麼用意？報酬遞增這玩意和真正的經濟學有什麼關係？ 他們為什麼看不到？ 類似問題令亞瑟十分迷惑。他們怎麼可能看不到呢？重點應該在於你必須去看這個世界的真實面，而不是以優雅的理論來說明世界應該是這個樣子呀！這整件事情令他想起文藝復興時代的醫療業，當時的醫生只學理論，從來不降尊紆貴的碰觸真正的病人。他們認為健康只是均衡的問題，也許你是個樂天的人或是暴躁的人，你都只需要讓體內的液體恢復均衡即可。但是從哈維發現血液循環以迄近代的分子生物學，近二百年醫學研究的價值，就在於了解到人類的器官深奧而複雜，因此我們現在會聽醫生的話，而醫生會把聽診器放在我們的胸口，為每個個案作不同的診斷。沒錯，只有當醫學研究人員開始注意到人體真正的複雜構造時，他們才能發展出真有機會治好病的治療方法和處方。 亞瑟認為報酬遞增的觀念正是在經濟學的領域，走一條同樣的路。他說：重要的是去觀察真實的、活生生的經濟，那是複雜、不斷演化、開放的、而且有機的體系。 然而，他很快的發現真正惹惱了批評者的是，他認為經濟的未來是不可預測的。他們問：如果這個世界能自我組織成許多、許多可能的形態，而且最後選擇某種形態，只不過是因為歷史的偶然，那麼你怎麼預測任何事情？而如果你無法預測任何事情，那麼你所作的研究怎麼能稱為科學呢？ 亞瑟不得不承認這是個好問題。長久以來，經濟學家都認為經濟學必須和物理一樣的科學，也就是說每件事都必須能以數學演算來推測。而他自己也不過在不久前才發現，物理不是唯一的科學。難道只因為達爾文無法預測未來幾百萬年間物種將如何演化，就說他不科學嗎？難道只因為地球科學家不能精確的預測，下一次地震會在哪裏發生或哪一列山脈將會隆起，就說他們不科學嗎？還有，難道只因為天文學家無法精準的預測下一顆星球將在何處誕生，就說他們不科學嗎？ wrong.如果你有辦法預測，很好。但是科學的本質在於解釋大自然的基本結構，這是生物學家、地球科學家及天文學家在各自的領域努力的方向，也是報酬遞增理論的目標。 逆時針方向走的鐘 當然，像這樣的論點無法說服那些原本就不打算被說服的人。例如一九八二年二月在系統研究院的某個場合，有關報酬遞增的演講中，當亞瑟正在回答聽眾的問題時，一位到訪的美國經濟學家站起來，頗為憤怒的要求：舉個例子，讓我們看看我們怎麼樣選擇了比較差的技巧！ 亞瑟瞥了一下演講廳的時鐘，因為時間快到了，但是他幾乎不加思索，就脫口而出：哦！時鐘。 時鐘？他解釋，今天所有的時鐘都是順時針方向走，但是他的理論是，你可以預期歷史上一定埋藏了一些可能和目前流行的技術不相上下的古老技術，只是因為偶然而沒有繼續發揚光大。就我所知，在歷史上某個階段，曾經有逆時針方向走的時鐘，當時這種時鐘可能和今天的時鐘一樣普遍。 發問的人不為所動。另一位知名的美國經濟學家接著站起來，高聲急促的說：無論如何，我看不出時鐘的鎖定效應，我戴的就是電子錶。 對亞瑟而言，那不是重點。但是，演講的時間已經超過了，而且這不過是他的猜測而已。但是，幾個星期後，到佛羅倫斯度假的同事福裴爾（James Vaupel