Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability


The world is changing in some really profound ways, and I worry that investors aren’t paying enough attention to some of the biggest drivers of change, especially when it comes to sustainability. And by sustainability, I mean the really juicy things, like environmental and social issues and corporate governance. I think it’s reckless to ignore these things, because doing so can jeopardize future long-term returns. And here’s something that may surprise you: the balance of power to really influence sustainability rests with institutional investors, the large investors like pension funds, foundations and endowments. I believe that sustainable investing is less complicated than you think, better-performing than you believe, and more important than we can imagine. Let me remind you what we already know. We have a population that’s both growing and aging; we have seven billion souls today heading to 10 billion at the end of the century; we consume natural resources faster than they can be replenished; and the emissions that are mainly responsible for climate change just keep increasing. Now clearly, these are
environmental and social issues, but that’s not all. They’re economic issues, and that makes them relevant to risk and return. And they are really complex and they can seem really far off, that the temptation may be to do this: bury our heads in the sand and not think about it. Resist this, if you can. Don’t do this at home. (Laughter) But it makes me wonder if the investment rules of today are fit for purpose tomorrow. We know that investors, when they look at a company
and decide whether to invest, they look at financial data, metrics like sales growth, cash flow, market share, valuation — you know, the really sexy stuff. And these things are fundamental, of course, but they’re not enough. Investors should also look at performance metrics in what we call ESG: environment, social and governance. Environment includes energy consumption, water availability, waste and pollution, just making efficient uses of resources. Social includes human capital, things like employee engagement and innovation capacity, as well as supply chain management and labor rights and human rights. And governance relates to the oversight of companies by their boards and investors. See, I told you this is the really juicy stuff. But ESG is the measure of sustainability, and sustainable investing incorporates ESG factors with financial factors into the investment process. It means limiting future risk by minimizing harm to people and planet, and it means providing capital to users who deploy it towards productive and sustainable outcomes. So if sustainability matters financially today, and all signs indicate more tomorrow, is the private sector paying attention? Well, the really cool thing is that most CEOs are. They started to see sustainability not just as important but crucial to business success. About 80 percent of global CEOs see sustainability as the root to growth in innovation and leading to competitive advantage in their industries. But 93 percent see ESG as the future, or as important to the future of their business. So the views of CEOs are clear. There’s tremendous opportunity in sustainability. So how are companies actually leveraging ESG to drive hard business results? One example is near and dear to our hearts. In 2012, State Street migrated 54 applications to the cloud environment, and we retired another 85. We virtualized our operating system environments, and we completed numerous automation projects. Now these initiatives create
a more mobile workplace, and they reduce our real estate footprint, and they yield savings of 23 million dollars in operating costs annually, and avoid the emissions of a 100,000 metric tons of carbon. That’s the equivalent of taking 21,000 cars off the road. So awesome, right? Another example is Pentair. Pentair is a U.S. industrial conglomerate, and about a decade ago, they sold their core power tools business and reinvested those proceeds in a water business. That’s a really big bet. Why did they do that? Well, with apologies to the Home Improvement fans, there’s more growth in water than in power tools, and this company has their sights set on what they call “the new New World.” That’s four billion middle class people demanding food, energy and water. Now, you may be asking yourself, are these just isolated cases? I mean, come on, really? Do companies that take sustainability into account really do well financially? The answer that may surprise you is yes. The data shows that stocks
with better ESG performance perform just as well as others. In blue, we see the MSCI World. It’s an index of large companies from developed markets across the world. And in gold, we see a subset of companies rated as having the best ESG performance. Over three plus years, no performance tradeoff. So that’s okay, right? We want more. I want more. In some cases, there may be outperformance from ESG. In blue, we see the performance of the 500 largest global companies, and in gold, we see a subset of companies with best practice in climate change strategy and risk management. Now over almost eight years, they’ve outperformed by about two thirds. So yes, this is correlation. It’s not causation. But it does illustrate that environmental leadership is compatible with good returns. So if the returns are the same or better and the planet benefits, wouldn’t this be the norm? Are investors, particularly institutional investors, engaged? Well, some are, and a few are really at the vanguard. Hesta. Hesta is a retirement fund for health and community services employees in Australia, with assets of 22 billion [dollars]. They believe that ESG has the potential to impact risks and returns, so incorporating it into the investment process is core to their duty to act in the best interest of fund members, core to their duty. You gotta love the Aussies, right? CalPERS is another example. CalPERS is the pension fund for public employees in California, and with assets of 244 billion [dollars], they are the second largest in the U.S. and the sixth largest in the world. Now, they’re moving toward 100 percent sustainable investment by systematically integrated ESG across the entire fund. Why? They believe it’s critical to superior long-term returns, full stop. In their own words, “long-term value creation requires the effective management of three forms of capital: financial, human, and physical. This is why we are concerned with ESG.” Now, I do speak to a lot of investors as part of my job, and not all of them see it this way. Often I hear, “We are required to maximize returns, so we don’t do that here,” or, “We don’t want to use the portfolio to make policy statements.” The one that just really gets under my skin is, “If you want to do something about that, just make money, give the profits to charities.” It’s eyes rolling, eyes rolling. I mean, let me clarify something right here. Companies and investors are not singularly responsible for the fate of the planet. They don’t have indefinite social obligations, and prudent investing and finance theory aren’t subordinate to sustainability. They’re compatible. So I’m not talking about tradeoffs here. But institutional investors are the x-factor in sustainability. Why do they hold the key? The answer, quite simply, is, they have the money. (Laughter) A lot of it. I mean, a really lot of it. The global stock market is worth 55 trillion dollars. The global bond market, 78 trillion. That’s 133 trillion combined. That’s eight and a half times the GDP of the U.S. That’s the world’s largest economy. That’s some serious freaking firepower. So we can reconsider some of these pressing challenges, like fresh water, clean air, feeding 10 billion mouths, if institutional investors integrated ESG into investment. What if they used that firepower to allocate more of their capital to companies working the hardest at solving these challenges or at least not exacerbating them? What if we work and save and invest, only to find that the world we retire into is more stressed and less secure than it is now? What if there isn’t enough clean air and fresh water? Now a fair question might be, what if all this sustainability risk stuff is exaggerated, overstated, it’s not urgent, something for virtuous consumers or lifestyle choice? Well, President John F. Kennedy said something about this that is just spot on: “There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.” I can appreciate that there is estimation risk in this, but since this is based on
widespread scientific consensus, the odds that it’s not completely wrong are better than the odds that our house will burn down or we’ll get in a car accident. Well, maybe not if you live in Boston. (Laughter) But my point is that we buy insurance to protect ourselves financially in case those things happen, right? So by investing sustainably we’re doing two things. We’re creating insurance, reducing the risk to our planet and to our economy, and at the same time, in the short term, we’re not sacrificing performance. [Man in comic: “What if it’s a big hoax
and we create a better world for nothing?”] Good, you like it. I like it too. (Laughter) I like it because it pokes fun at both sides of the climate change issue. I bet you can’t guess which side I’m on. But what I really like about it is that it reminds me of something Mark Twain said, which is, “Plan for the future, because that’s where you’re going to spend the rest of your life.” Thank you. (Applause)

Paul Whisler

43 Comments

  1. Woah!  He said "Long-Term Returns!"

    Is that still a thing?  I thought we were all just going Quarter-to-Quarter now.

  2. "Sustainability is pretty clearly one of the world's most important goals" and yet our economies, science course, technology and general perception of mankinds role on the planet counters that statement directly.

    Actions speak louder than words and those words ring hollow and empty as the world plummets into a self dug pit of 9 pairs of shoes, 8 jackets, a frappacinno a day and war that is perpetually waged at the cost of critical resources.

    Thought TED had a little less of their own heads up their asses, guess I was wrong.

  3. "Sustainability" is one of the most over used words in the English Language, and the continued use of this word is probably the most "unsustainable" thing of all. Why are we parroting of this sustainability agenda. People think they are smart using this term, NO, they give away their brainwashing to that cause. It's not that such things are not better ideas for companies and investors, it's that putting all the emphasis there is propping up a strong leaning towards the overall socialist agenda which will continue to destroy free-market capitalism if we let it. And BTW – CO2 is not evil, and when it comes to carbon, you are partly made of it.

  4. An ardent advocate of sustainability, Chris McKnett asserts the importance of investing in green technologies and creating carbon neutral world. Citing various fastest growing investment companies, he argues this idea succinctly and concludes think about future that's where we going to spend rest of our life. Highly recommended talk.

  5. We're fuarked.  We use too much  and think making minimal changes is going to help.  We need to go away from the idea  of "want" and change it to what we "need".  just saiyan

  6. Where does he mention the real social issues?

    We allow money (wich is paper=0) to stay on the wrong hands! Goverments backstab their ppl to serve private capital.

    THere are millions of humans suffering while some hundrends play god in their back yard.

    There are millions that dont have water or hospitals while couple of hundrends make millions every year.

    There are countries undermined with economical war for private corporations profit.

    This wealthy minority wont change, we ve been talking about it for decades and they still plan their business with no regard against enviroment or humans. Things dont change because they dont want to.

    I dont want to hear about stocks or stockmarkets, these things are absurd and imo they cause more harm to the midle class ppl than good.

    He also talked about pentions, when? at 65? isnt that late? can u work until then or better will u be healthy to see 65? Our jobs are consuming us, there is a long list of ilnesses related with the work enviroment. Our social life suffer too. This way of life is just a slow suicide.

    Lets stop playing with the economical rules, we dont understand them because we are on the loosing side.

  7. "Let me clarify something right here: Companies and investors are not singularly responsible for the fate of the planet. They don't have indefinite social obligations, and prudent investing and finance theory aren't subordinate to sustainability; they're compatible. So, i'm not talking about trade-offs here. But institutional investors are the "X-factor" in sustainability. Why do they hold the key? The answer is quite simply: they have the money; a lot of it …I mean a really lot of it!" 
    …quite a mouthful. #ItsAllAboutTheMoney  

  8. We need a Resource Based Economy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. This guy missed something… he was right at the beginning the world is about to change… but you have to be pretty near sighted to think that the money market economic dynamic will stay the same. Sorry Chris Capitalism is dead… and it won't make it much further. The singularity is near.

  10. When McKennett talks about how State Street migrated their infrastructure to the cloud and reduced their real estate footprint, doesn't that reduction in real estate, savings and power get offloaded to the datacenter hosting their infrastructure?

  11. "Yes, this is correlation and not causation, but it does illustrate that environmental leadership is compatible with good returns." Yes, but if google starts throwing money into the Grand Canyon and still do better than other tech companies, that doesn't mean throwing the money in the Grand Canyon is a wise financial decision.

  12. Could it be that the financial growth of green and sustainable technologies is because people have become enraptured with the idea of making a difference in the environment they live in? Perhaps in wake of the immense increase in public interest since global warming was popularized?

  13. At all communists saying capitalism didn't give us anything, ruined the world etc. First of all – you haven't even seen free market, it's mostly controlled (and ruined) by governments ATM. All your BS like – we need to share etc. – yeah, worked out perfectly in the past. I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but we need more capitalism, not less, as we have barely any right now. Furthermore – that's funny you can even spread your crap, I bet you didn't get PC or internet for free, did you? Singularity – yeah, that's the moment where we can start discussion about sharing, but definitely not right now.

  14. Reasoning from the specific to the general. In this approach, you begin by Logical form
    Main article: Logical form
    Logic is generally considered formal when it analyzes and represents the form of any valid argument type. The form of an argument is displayed by representing its sentences in the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical language to make its content usable in formal inference. If one considers the notion of form too philosophically loaded, one could say that formalizing simply means translating English sentences into the language of logic.
    This is called showing the logical form of the argument. It is necessary because indicative sentences of ordinary language show a considerable variety of form and complexity that makes their use in inference impractical. It requires, first, ignoring those grammatical features irrelevant to logic (such as gender and declension, if the argument is in Latin), replacing conjunctions irrelevant to logic (such as 'but') with logical conjunctions like 'and' and replacing ambiguous, or alternative logical expressions ('any', 'every', etc.) with expressions of a standard type (such as 'all', or the universal quantifier ∀).
    Second, certain parts of the sentence must be replaced with schematic letters. Thus, for example, the expression all As are Bs shows the logical form common to the sentences all men are mortals, all cats are carnivores, all Greeks are philosophers and so on.
    That the concept of form is fundamental to logic was already recognized in ancient times. Aristotle uses variable letters to represent valid inferences in Prior Analytics, leading Jan Łukasiewicz to say that the introduction of variables was 'one of Aristotle's greatest inventions'.[10] According to the followers of Aristotle (such as Ammonius), only the logical principles stated in schematic terms belong to logic, not those given in concrete terms. The concrete terms man', 'mortal, etc., are analogous to the substitution values of the schematic placeholders 'A', 'B', 'C', which were called the 'matter' (Greek 'hyle') of the inference.
    The fundamental difference between modern formal logic and traditional, or Aristotelian logic, lies in their differing analysis of the logical form of the sentences they treat.
    In the traditional view, the form of the sentence consists of (1) a subject (e.g., 'man') plus a sign of quantity ('all' or 'some' or 'no'); (2) the copula, which is of the form 'is' or 'is not'; (3) a predicate (e.g., 'mortal'). Thus: all men are mortal. The logical constants such as 'all', 'no' and so on, plus sentential connectives such as 'and' and 'or' were called 'syncategorematic' terms (from the Greek 'kategorei' – to predicate, and 'syn' – together with). This is a fixed scheme, where each judgment has an identified quantity and copula, determining the logical form of the sentence.
    According to the modern view, the fundamental form of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure.
    The modern view is more complex, since a single judgement of Aristotle's system involves two or more logical connectives. For example, the sentence "All men are mortal" involves, in term logic, two non-logical terms "is a man" (here M) and "is mortal" (here D): the sentence is given by the judgement A(M,D). In predicate logic, the sentence involves the same two non-logical concepts, here analyzed as and , and the sentence is given by , involving the logical connectives for universal quantification and implication.
    But equally, the modern view is more powerful. Medieval logicians recognized the problem of multiple generality, where Aristotelian logic is unable to satisfactorily render such sentences as "Some guys have all the luck", because both quantities "all" and "some" may be relevant in an inference, but the fixed scheme that Aristotle used allows only one to govern the inference. Just as linguists recognize recursive structure in natural languages, it appears that logic needs recursive structure.
    Deductive and inductive reasoning, and retroductive inference
    Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (if a, then b). However, inductive reasoning—the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations—has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Similarly, it is important to distinguish deductive validity and inductive validity (called "cogency"). An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true but the conclusion false. An inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid; its premises give only some degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.
    The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less formal than others; some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability. For the most part this discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic.
    Retroductive inference is a mode of reasoning that Peirce proposed as operating over and above induction and deduction to "open up new ground" in processes of theorizing (1911, p. 2). He defines retroduction as a logical inference that allows us to "render comprehensible" some observations/events we perceive, by relating these back to a posited state of affairs that would help to shed light on the observations (Peirce, 1911, p. 2). He remarks that the "characteristic formula" of reasoning that he calls retroduction is that it involves reasoning from a consequent (any observed/experienced phenomena that confront us) to an antecedent (that is, a posited state of things that helps us to render comprehensible the observed phenomenon). Or, as he otherwise puts it, it can be considered as "regressing from a consequent to a hypothetical antecedent" (1911, p. 4).[11]
    Some authors suggest that this mode of inference can be used within social theorizing to postulate social structures/mechanisms that explain the way that social outcomes arise in social life—and that in turn indicates that these structures or mechanisms are alterable with sufficient social will (and envisioning of alternatives). In other words, this logic is specifically liberative in that it can be used to point to transformative potential in our way of organizing our social existence by our re-examining/exploring the deep structures that generate outcomes (and life chances for people). In her book on New Racism (2010) Norma Romm offers an account of various interpretations of what can be said to be involved in retroduction as a form of inference and how this can also be seen to be linked to a style of theorizing (and caring) where processes of knowing (which she sees as dialogically rooted) are linked to social justice projects.[12]
    Consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness
    In Europe, logic was first developed by Aristotle.[16] Aristotelian logic became widely accepted in science and mathematics and remained in wide use in the West until the early 19th century.[17] Aristotle's system of logic was responsible for the introduction of hypothetical syllogism,[18] temporal modal logic,[19][20] and inductive logic,[21] as well as influential terms such as terms, predicables, syllogisms and propositions. In Europe during the later medieval period, major efforts were made to show that Aristotle's ideas were compatible with Christian faith. During the High Middle Ages, logic became a main focus of philosophers, who would engage in critical logical analyses of philosophical arguments, often using variations of the methodology of scholasticism. In 1323, William of Ockham's influential Summa Logicae was released. By the 18th century, the structured approach to arguments had degenerated and fallen out of favour, as depicted in Holberg's satirical play Erasmus Montanus.
    The Chinese logical philosopher Gongsun Long (ca. 325–250 BC) proposed the paradox "One and one cannot become two, since neither becomes two."[22] In China, the tradition of scholarly investigation into logic, however, was repressed by the Qin dynasty following the legalist philosophy of Han Feizi.
    In India, innovations in the scholastic school, called Nyaya, continued from ancient times into the early 18th century with the Navya-Nyaya school. By the 16th century, it developed theories resembling modern logic, such as Gottlob Frege's "distinction between sense and reference of proper names" and his "definition of number," as well as the theory of "restrictive conditions for universals" anticipating some of the developments in modern set theory.[23] Since 1824, Indian logic attracted the attention of many Western scholars, and has had an influence on important 19th-century logicians such as Charles Babbage, Augustus De Morgan, and George Boole.[24] In the 20th century, Western philosophers like Stanislaw Schayer and Klaus Glashoff have explored Indian logic more extensively.
    The syllogistic logic developed by Aristotle predominated in the West until the mid-19th century, when interest in the foundations of mathematics stimulated the development of symbolic logic (now called mathematical logic). In 1854, George Boole published An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities, introducing symbolic logic and the principles of what is now known as Boolean logic. In 1879, Gottlob Frege published Begriffsschrift, which inaugurated modern logic with the invention of quantifier notation. From 1910 to 1913, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell published Principia Mathematica[8] on the foundations of mathematics, attempting to derive mathematical truths from axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic. In 1931, Gödel raised serious problems with the foundationalist program and logic ceased to focus on such issues.
    The development of logic since Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein had a profound influence on the practice of philosophy and the perceived nature of philosophical problems (see Analytic philosophy), and Philosophy of mathematics. Logic, especially sentential logic, is implemented in computer logic circuits and is fundamental to computer science. Logic is commonly taught by university philosophy departments, often as a compulsory discipline.
    Main article: Aristotelian logic
    The Organon was Aristotle's body of work on logic, with the Prior Analytics constituting the first explicit work in formal logic, introducing the syllogistic.[25] The parts of syllogistic logic, also known by the name term logic, are the analysis of the judgements into propositions consisting of two terms that are related by one of a fixed number of relations, and the expression of inferences by means of syllogisms that consist of two propositions sharing a common term as premise, and a conclusion that is a proposition involving the two unrelated terms from the premises.
    Aristotle's work was regarded in classical times and from medieval times in Europe and the Middle East as the very picture of a fully worked out system. However, it was not alone: the Stoics proposed a system of propositional logic that was studied by medieval logicians. Also, the problem of multiple generality was recognised in medieval times. Nonetheless, problems with syllogistic logic were not seen as being in need of revolutionary solutions.
    Today, some academics claim that Aristotle's system is generally seen as having little more than historical value (though there is some current interest in extending term logics), regarded as made obsolete by the advent of propositional logic and the predicate calculus. Others use Aristotle in argumentation theory to help develop and critically question argumentation schemes that are used in artificial intelligence and legal arguments.
    Propositional logic (sentential logic)
    Main article: Propositional calculus
    A propositional calculus or logic (also a sentential calculus) is a formal system in which formulae representing propositions can be formed by combining atomic propositions using logical connectives, and in which a system of formal proof rules establishes certain formulae as "theorems".
    Predicate logic
    Main article: Predicate logic
    Predicate logic is the generic term for symbolic formal systems such as first-order logic, second-order logic, many-sorted logic, and infinitary logic.
    Predicate logic provides an account of quantifiers general enough to express a wide set of arguments occurring in natural language. Aristotelian syllogistic logic specifies a small number of forms that the relevant part of the involved judgements may take. Predicate logic allows sentences to be analysed into subject and argument in several additional ways—allowing predicate logic to solve the problem of multiple generality that had perplexed medieval logicians.
    The development of predicate logic is usually attributed to Gottlob Frege, who is also credited as one of the founders of analytical philosophy, but the formulation of predicate logic most often used today is the first-order logic presented in Principles of Mathematical Logic by David Hilbert and Wilhelm Ackermann in 1928. The analytical generality of predicate logic allowed the formalisation of mathematics, drove the investigation of set theory, and allowed the development of Alfred Tarski's approach to model theory. It provides the foundation of modern mathematical logic.
    Frege's original system of predicate logic was second-order, rather than first-order. Second-order logic is most prominently defended (against the criticism of Willard Van Orman Quine and others) by George Boolos and Stewart Shapiro.
    Modal logic
    Main article: Modal logic
    In languages, modality deals with the phenomenon that sub-parts of a sentence may have their semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For example, "We go to the games" can be modified to give "We should go to the games", and "We can go to the games"" and perhaps "We will go to the games". More abstractly, we might say that modality affects the circumstances in which we take an assertion to be satisfied.
    Aristotle's logic is in large parts concerned with the theory of non-modalized logic. Although, there are passages in his work, such as the famous sea-battle argument in De Interpretatione § 9, that are now seen as anticipations of modal logic and its connection with potentiality and time, the earliest formal system of modal logic was developed by Avicenna, whom ultimately developed a theory of "temporally modalized" syllogistic.[26]
    While the study of necessity and possibility remained important to philosophers, little logical innovation happened until the landmark investigations of Clarence Irving Lewis in 1918, who formulated a family of rival axiomatizations of the alethic modalities. His work unleashed a torrent of new work on the topic, expanding the kinds of modality treated to include deontic logic and epistemic logic. The seminal work of Arthur Prior applied the same formal language to treat temporal logic and paved the way for the marriage of the two subjects. Saul Kripke discovered (contemporaneously with rivals) his theory of frame semantics, which revolutionised the formal technology available to modal logicians and gave a new graph-theoretic way of looking at modality that has driven many applications in computational linguistics and computer science, such as dynamic logic.
    Computational logic
    Main article: Logic in computer science
    Logic cut to the heart of computer science as it emerged as a discipline: Alan Turing's work on the Entscheidungsproblem followed from Kurt Gödel's work on the incompleteness theorems, and the notion of general purpose computers that came from this work was of fundamental importance to the designers of the computer machinery in the 1940s.
    In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers predicted that when human knowledge could be expressed using logic with mathematical notation, it would be possible to create a machine that reasons, or artificial intelligence. This was more difficult than expected because of the complexity of human reasoning. In logic programming, a program consists of a set of axioms and rules. Logic programming systems such as Prolog compute the consequences of the axioms and rules in order to answer a query.
    Today, logic is extensively applied in the fields of Artificial Intelligence, and Computer Science, and these fields provide a rich source of problems in formal and informal logic. Argumentation theory is one good example of how logic is being applied to artificial intelligence. The ACM Computing Classification System in particular regards:
    Section F.3 on Logics and meanings of programs and F.4 on Mathematical logic and formal languages as part of the theory of computer science: this work covers formal semantics of programming languages, as well as work of formal methods such as Hoare logic
    Boolean logic as fundamental to computer hardware: particularly, the system's section B.2 on Arithmetic and logic structures, relating to operatives AND, NOT, and OR;
    Many fundamental logical formalisms are essential to section I.2 on artificial intelligence, for example modal logic and default logic in Knowledge representation formalisms and methods, Horn clauses in logic programming, and description logic.
    Furthermore, computers can be used as tools for logicians. For example, in symbolic logic and mathematical logic, proofs by humans can be computer-assisted. Using automated theorem proving the machines can find and check proofs, as well as work with proofs too lengthy to write out by hand.
    Bivalence and the law of the excluded middle
    Main article: Principle of bivalence
    The logics discussed above are all "bivalent" or "two-valued"; that is, they are most naturally understood as dividing propositions into true and false propositions. Non-classical logics are those systems that reject bivalence.
    Hegel developed his own dialectic logic that extended Kant's transcendental logic but also brought it back to ground by assuring us that "neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either–or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself".[33]
    In 1910, Nicolai A. Vasiliev extended the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction and proposed the law of excluded fourth and logic tolerant to contradiction.[34] In the early 20th century Jan Łukasiewicz investigated the extension of the traditional true/false values to include a third value, "possible", so inventing ternary logic, the first multi-valued logic.[citation needed]
    Logics such as fuzzy logic have since been devised with an infinite number of "degrees of truth", represented by a real number between 0 and 1.[35]
    Intuitionistic logic was proposed by L.E.J. Brouwer as the correct logic for reasoning about mathematics, based upon his rejection of the law of the excluded middle as part of his intuitionism. Brouwer rejected formalisation in mathematics, but his student Arend Heyting studied intuitionistic logic formally, as did Gerhard Gentzen. Intuitionistic logic is of great interest to computer scientists, as it is a constructive logic and can be applied for extracting verified programs from proofs.
    Modal logic is not truth conditional, and so it has often been proposed as a non-classical logic. However, modal logic is normally formalised with the principle of the excluded middle, and its relational semantics is bivalent, so this inclusion is disputable.
    "Is logic empirical?"
    Main article: Is logic empirical?
    What is the epistemological status of the laws of logic? What sort of argument is appropriate for criticizing purported principles of logic? In an influential paper entitled "Is logic empirical?"[36] Hilary Putnam, building on a suggestion of W.V. Quine, argued that in general the facts of propositional logic have a similar epistemological status as facts about the physical universe, for example as the laws of mechanics or of general relativity, and in particular that what physicists have learned about quantum mechanics provides a compelling case for abandoning certain familiar principles of classical logic: if we want to be realists about the physical phenomena described by quantum theory, then we should abandon the principle of distributivity, substituting for classical logic the quantum logic proposed by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann.[37]
    Another paper of the same name by Sir Michael Dummett argues that Putnam's desire for realism mandates the law of distributivity.[38] Distributivity of logic is essential for the realist's understanding of how propositions are true of the world in just the same way as he has argued the principle of bivalence is. In this way, the question, "Is logic empirical?" can be seen to lead naturally into the fundamental controversy in metaphysics on realism versus anti-realism.
    Implication: strict or material?
    Main article: Paradox of entailment
    It is obvious that the notion of implication formalised in classical logic does not comfortably translate into natural language by means of "if… then…", due to a number of problems called the paradoxes of material implication.
    The first class of paradoxes involves counterfactuals, such as If the moon is made of green cheese, then 2+2=5, which are puzzling because natural language does not support the principle of explosion. Eliminating this class of paradoxes was the reason for C. I. Lewis's formulation of strict implication, which eventually led to more radically revisionist logics such as relevance logic.
    The second class of paradoxes involves redundant premises, falsely suggesting that we know the succedent because of the antecedent: thus "if that man gets elected, granny will die" is materially true since granny is mortal, regardless of the man's election prospects. Such sentences violate the Gricean maxim of relevance, and can be modelled by logics that reject the principle of monotonicity of entailment, such as relevance logic.
    Tolerating the impossible
    Main article: Paraconsistent logic
    Hegel was deeply critical of any simplified notion of the Law of Non-Contradiction. It was based on Leibniz's idea that this law of logic also requires a sufficient ground to specify from what point of view (or time) one says that something cannot contradict itself. A building, for example, both moves and does not move; the ground for the first is our solar system and for the second the earth. In Hegelian dialectic, the law of non-contradiction, of identity, itself relies upon difference and so is not independently assertable.
    Closely related to questions arising from the paradoxes of implication comes the suggestion that logic ought to tolerate inconsistency. Relevance logic and paraconsistent logic are the most important approaches here, though the concerns are different: a key consequence of classical logic and some of its rivals, such as intuitionistic logic, is that they respect the principle of explosion, which means that the logic collapses if it is capable of deriving a contradiction. Graham Priest, the main proponent of dialetheism, has argued for paraconsistency on the grounds that there are in fact, true contradictions.[39]
    Rejection of logical truth
    The philosophical vein of various kinds of skepticism contains many kinds of doubt and rejection of the various bases on which logic rests, such as the idea of logical form, correct inference, or meaning, typically leading to the conclusion that there are no logical truths. Observe that this is opposite to the usual views in philosophical skepticism, where logic directs skeptical enquiry to doubt received wisdoms, as in the work of Sextus Empiricus.

  15. Conservatives think the only alternatives are the monetary system and petroleum. Conservatives hold black and white values.

  16. As a business student I agree, sustainability offers companies opportunities to save costs, increase efficiency and gain new customers and suppliers. It is now the way forward!

  17. I call bull. The "climate change" that's being used as an excuse to push this police state, globalist agenda has been PROVEN to be a scam, thought up by criminals and fraud enthusiasts like Maurice Strong, who got the UN to push it and make BILLIONS out of evading the carbon measures they want us to slave under. This is terrible. Using people's inherent good nature and concerns about the environment to push Agenda 21, an agenda that would've given Hitler wet dreams. Welcome to the Fourth Reich, guys.

  18. I agree with the talk, but the fact that we live in a world where economic factors are seen as more important than both social and environmental factors, is sickening. To anybody with a thinking mind, this talk shouldn't be necessary. In the long-run, history will view the type of logic used in this talk as a form of social psychosis. 

  19. He could have talked to "both sides" better by leaving out climate change completely. Instead talking about sustainable investment in a finite world with greater competition, no need for CO2 or population graph, anyone can find faults with those and discard the rest of the talk.

  20. I think about the fact we are destroying the world every day, more people need to wake up and start taking care of this planet 🙁

  21. I'm part of a project that's working on a sustainable home design project: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/613195517/rabblehousers-collaborative-homebuilding/description

  22. thank you will try to promote and suggest Financial Investment clients to incorporate ESG. good idea even for the sustainability of the company itself

  23. Sustainability is a great thing, but I love how he tells us that this will encourage capitalism and unchecked globalization.

  24. very interesting video. If you want to learn more click this link and get started. https://recyclix.com/?id=420faed381c3a5
    20€ for free (no deposit)
    i understand If you are curious but its for real. I earn about 500€ per month atm by doing sth really good for OUR PLANET

  25. Get 10 % off on theme purchase with Templates Monster. Just use promo code – kttovqnhjl5ja2zcht178rtrw .

  26. http://www.threelly.com/ With Threelly AI; YouTubers, Educators, Governments or Corporations can now extend their YouTube capabilities; getting a brand new, unique and distinctive way to standout from the crowd, WOW subscribers, learn quicker, discover new insights, search deep into their videos; thus making any YouTube Channel – more FUN, RELEVANT and ENGAGING for viewers.

  27. in the state street example migration to cloud infra from one entity to another , is transferring carbon fooprint to cloud third party operators is reduced slightly ownership is transferred nevertheless the physicall servers and their real estate is out there tangible somewhere if not state street.
    what about over centralized urban design, all eggs in one basket?

  28. YES!!! This movement is real. Everyone that's on Reddit needs to join r/GreenInvestor! It's a community all about Impact Investing.

  29. Idiots, every human born should automatically have a house built. I'm tired of idiots acting like it takes to much to feed,house and clothe a person and trying to limit personal choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *