They can't all be wrong - or can they?

I have read a similar analysis in a fiscally conservative but socially liberal magazine, a rather middle of the road newspaper and a decidedly left wing news outlet, that the ongoing nature of our economic woes, despite the bailouts across the world, are evidence that the bailouts didn’t work.

I say nonsense to that! And wow, would things ever be a disaster if if they had done nothing.

I see these results of evidence that, had governments reacted as they did 75-80 years ago, we would quite likely have faced a Depression-like outcome. As it stands, we can take comfort in that it is not nearly so bad: we’re only looking at the worst recession in the industrial world (possibly) since world war 2, rather than one that is on par with the worst recession ever.

The argument that the present status of the economy is evidence that bailouts don't work brings the following picture of a literal bailout to mind (and if I were an artist of any sort, I would surely offer up an actual visual rendition of it).

Two sailors in a rapidly sinking boat with sharks swirling around... One of them is bailing water for all he's worth, and says “I’ve got this covered for a minute. You mind figuring out how to patch things up?” The other stands by idly, saying “I can`t see why he even bothers. With all this water left in the boat, he’s wasting his time.”

Hey, we need to let the shitty boats sink sometimes, but when the whole fleet springs a leak at the same time, it would be pretty stupid to take ongoing problems as evidence that all the bailers should be sent packing.

A recent cause of discontent in Florida

There was a recent story about an Islamic group in Florida who put up a bunch of ads on buses promoting Islam. An ensuing public discussion saw a Muslim leader in the community say that, in his view, since all Muslims are people of God, then Abraham, Moses and Jesus must also have been Muslim.

I think the whole notion is ridiculous to start with, since there was no such thing as Islam when these guys were alive, but it got me thinking about something.

Only a misinformed Christian (i.e. most of them) is unaware of the fact that Muslims explicitly worship the same God as Christians (although this depends on whether you think God 'sans Jesus' is the same God). However, nearly every Muslim is aware of this, since the Koran states early on that they are following the tradition of the teachings of the Jews and the Christians. The main difference is that they see Mohammed as the last prophet.

So what did I get thinking? Well, just imagine this...

We come to an agreement that all Christians and Jews are "people of God." We then come to an agreement that Muslims are also "people of God", but that we don't agree that Mohammed was a prophet.

Muslims can then also agree that all Muslims are "people of God" and that the Jews and Christians are also "people of God", but with the knowledge that the Jews and Christians are greviously mistaken in their disbelief of the virtue of Mohammed's sacred nature.

Rather than discussing theological sounding, technical sorts of phrases, such as "Ambrahamic faiths", or "people of the book" (which refers to the Torah and emphasizes differences), we can begin to embrace a common ground that we are all people of God.

With such a striking commonality, we can then see each other somewhat more as humans before getting back to the nitty gritty of details such as whether prayer must be towards Mecca, priests must intercede between us and God, or more importantly whether one's decision to accept the word of one holy man or another as God's most recent message is a legitimate basis for eternal harmony or damnation. After all, these are mere details, right? What really matters is that we Jews, Muslims and Christians can commune together in a spiritual development that questions what God would really want our societies to make of themselves.


As for me? I largely see religion as an evolutionary factor in social and cultural development that promotes social cohesion. I'm not too concerned if that sounds like mumbo jumbo, 'cause it makes sense to me and I'm not really interested in explaining myself for now. But why on earth should my atheism get in the way of the "people of God" seeking some commonality?

Of course, there's nothing particularly original in what I'm saying. I'm just using different words to say it. As Freud discussed, with respect to his concept of "the narcissism of small differences", I'm not sure that accepting our commonalities would solve much - after all, much more insignificant theological differences between sects of Christianity were historically quite sufficient cause to mobilize the populace to fight foreign nations. All the same, I don't expect rejoicing our commonality as "the people of God" could make things worse.


Since Florida was the lead-in ... I just have to say that I can no longer point to the ongoing rise on coastal property values in Florida as one of the most costly results of global warming denial among Americans. Perhaps I will have to write a piece knocking Floridian home owners when the housing markets sorts itself if coastal property values join the rise. Then again, I guess if you plan to be dead before the house gets flooded out then it doesn't really matter, right? Or does it?

It wouldn't be a slogan if it wasn't short

I was thinking about how it would be good for the environment if people would use their resources to buy a smaller amount of really high quality goods and services rather than a large quantity of low quality goods and services. Hiding within are the seeds of a pro-domestic goods slogan that one would never wish into formal trade policy discussions, and a subculture reference that may appeal to potheads and should innocently bypass just about anyone else. Without wasting any more words, here it is

Go green with the good stuff! Buy quality, not quantity.

Back at it ... The Absurdity of Eugenics

After a gloriously unproductive hiatus, I'm back at it with an article on eugenics that I planned to finish up before the break. Actually, it’s more like a list of points, since there isn’t a whole lot of structure.


Evolution is not directional. (Not in nature, that is. I suppose we could make it that way ... but I suggest considering the final two lines of this piece for some reflection about how much direction we could offer.) We should certainly try to survive as a species, but we don't know what attributes will help us the best.

However, as pointed out by Marx, we both create our (social) environment and face evolutionary pressures from it. Sure, we can influence all aspects of our environment, but reality is way to complex to know exactly what will happen.

If reality is too complex at the macro level, then eugenics is eternally bound to be useless, except as a morally corrupted tool to enhance the benefits of some particular social group (who define their own characteristics as being the most fit, then try to make it true by imposing their vision on people). It is therefore eminently beyond our ability to figure out which specific bits of the complex whole should become the target of any such eugenics-minded project.

Even if we were to disregard the distasteful elements of eugenics, I quite strongly believe that an absolute precondition would have to be perfect equality of opportunity. Any other starting point would bias the whole process and lead to suboptimal results. (Haha... eat that! Pure socialism as a logical and necessary pre-condition to eugenics. If that’s the precondition, I’d like to know just how many of these neo-Nazis would still embrace the project.)
___________________________________________________

While we can conceptually grasp the pieces of the whole (individuals) and think we can understand it, and we can also grasp the whole (humanity, and the infinite ways that it relates to our environment), and think we understand it, each of these are filled with uncertainty and poor knowledge.

To then suppose that the individual (the eugenicist) is able to unite such completely flawed packets of information so as to find the most 'perfect' ways that they must match up, counting for all possible future effects, is not exactly an endearing example of the sort of intelligence they claim to favour. The sheer absurdity of the proposition is, in fact, my primary thrust. This paragraph largely constitutes my entire argument.
____________________________________________________

Consider the following possibility ... In the year 2100, a person with a low IQ but great sensitivity to social situations becomes a political leader and staves off what would otherwise have been a nuclear holocaust. The leader on the other side agrees, because his schizophrenic nephew, on new meds, was full of a certain joie de vie during a recent visit, which rubbed off on the guy and made him more conciliatory.


YOU JUST DON'T KNOW! My God, how much more clear can I get! There is only one group of people that I find more frustrating than hard-core fundamentalists, and that's hard core eugenicists. Let me tell you why.

A fundamentalist is typically unshakable in their position and takes honour in such. They see such inherent truth in their views that it would never cross their mind to pretend that you might be half-way right just to turn around and try to convince you. But the eugenicist will pretend to agree with you in any way that is conducive to opening the space for an argument that makes eugenics sound palatable.

Self-censorship and social admonition with respect to reproduction? Sure, sounds great. Our evolutionary direction is almost sure to be affected by "sexual selection" (in the Darwinian sense) that includes greater knowledge about our genetic composition. Individuals will, or will not, choose to have babies. Certain social and economic incentives affect these choices. However, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that is more fundamentally an inherently natural right, as a living organism, be it a cell or a rabbit, let along a human being, than the right to enter the market of sexual activity and reproduction, if one so chooses.

It`s all relative ... beside Putin, Harper is positively angelic

I just read in the Globe and Mail that treason in Russia is being redefined loosely such that it could include just about anything that the authorities wanted it to include.

I refuse to hold back any criticism of the moves made by Harper last month. There is no doubt in my mind that they would have undermined the strength of democracy in Canada (and perversely may have strengthened it due to the failure of his plan)

... BUT, positioned along side Putin he seems positively angelic right about now. Is this a matter of character or due to the differing political realities of the countries? I have no idea.


All in all, this is a very sad day for the people of Russia. I wonder if they even know it. I wish I could read Russian to see what kind of propaganda is being produced on the topic right now.

Put together with increasing anti-Westernism fomented by the Russian government, I can't help but wonder if NATO might want to think long and hard about the potential implications of a recent cartoon in the Economist. A bear breaks out of the cage, and a bunch of jesters have toy weapons to stop it. To complicate things, the very act of being found to make a plan is itself the equivalent of rattling the cage. However, it is my opinion that this contingency plan absolutely must be nailed down in a number of formats in utmost secrecy. More importantly, a strategy of rapprochement must be carried out post haste without selling out one bit.

When the facts lead you away from what's really going on

I said I was going to dispatch eugenics to the abyss. I got the outline and half of it finished, then got distracted and wrote this instead. Since I should really be studying for my last exam tomorrow, I'm just going to post this and continue on.

Further to this piece ...



Government gets unfair flack for inefficiency because it takes on stuff that is inherently difficult to do and that's why the market doesn't do it. Some political outcomes allow us to address market failures in ways that are desirable for people, rather than assuming that market solutions alone will achieve the results that are most desirable for the greatest number of people.

For example, the US has private medical insurance, yet spends a greater portion of GDP on health care than any nation in the world, yet, achieves average health care results among the lowest in the OECD.

For example, I don't suppose unemployment insurance would be very effectively offered by private markets. While slow and inefficient service by the government may effectively deter some claims, it's hard to imagine that a private market would not do even more to minimize these payments in each case. Furthermore, people in seasonal or otherwise unpredictable lines of work would not likely be able to get insurance for a decent price. While this may engender 'economic efficiency' at the surface, that doesn't mean that it's socially desirable to leave employment insurance to private markets (although if they want to sell extra coverage, why not?).

For example, many of the most profitable industries are the result of massive public investments in education and technology. For example, aerospace, health and medicine, energy technologies... Of course, market mechanisms are trusted to sort out the best business models and marketing methods, but public resources are key to technological development in many industries.

For example, private schools only provide education to families with the means or desire to spend on education. Public education develops the skills and human capital of all of society.

____________________________________
On the other side, let's consider public corporations. There is no shortage of examples of ineffective publicly-owned corporations. Let's make that absolutely clear. I'm not even going to bother starting a list here. However, there are notable exceptions.

Let's consider the Canadian mint. Forget about the fact that they print money. It sounds crazy, but the fact that these guys literally make money does not confer any ability, in and of itself, to be profitable. In recent years, successful marketing and business development and a reputation for good quality has led to the Canadian mint from a crown corporation that lost money to one that is profitable. This company competes in a global market where each national government could choose to print their money at home or in any number of places. They choose the Canadian mint. This begs a 'simple' question - what incentives were in place and what mechanisms were unique to the mandate of this organization that allowed it to be so successful in a competitive marketplace? Was it just a highly capable individual or team in the right place at the right time, or was there something institutionally correct that we can learn from this example?

Other examples such as the LCBO or Petro Canada (when largely government operated) are not entirely fair comparisons. They are highly profitable companies mostly because the government awards itself a monopoly. The efficiencies of a monopoly can be great, since there are no expensive and duplicit marketing campaigns, and locations can be strategically chosen to maximize profit while offering better average service. However, I should say again that the much of the LCBOs profits must (by economic theory) be due to the fact that they have a monopoly power to set prices. This is the reason that I choose to emphasize the example of the mint, which operates in a competitive market.

_______________________________________

We have seen here that governments fill important gaps that would be poorly served by markets. We have also seen that at least some crown corporations can operate competitively and efficiently.

Let me emphasize that I am well aware that I am making a rather one-sided argument. The other side of the argument is very well established, and is nearly an article of faith among a significant portion of society. However, it has its basis in a simplistic view of fact.

I will readily admit that governments don't tend to be as efficient as markets. The problem of perception comes from the fact that governments are active precisely where efficiency is hardest to achieve.

The facts will tell you that governments are less efficient than markets. What I have argued, is that with a little thought, we can see that much of the cause for this is that governments tackle the most challenging and unprofitable issues. Counter-intuitively, these are absolutely vital to efficient and profitable operations in markets.

This last statement is not an original point, but I think the explanation I offer for why so many people are inclined to disagree with the argument is.

Aligning the present and the future - playing in the stars

I have two comments I’d like target to the growing chorus of people who believe that fundamental change is needed in many of the ways we approach food production, industrial production, and in general, the way that we in the present-day West tend to face life. Just to be clear, I'm totally part of that chorus. How to get it done, however, is a matter of strategy and communication more so than ideals.

The first comment is that change is almost guaranteed not to happen in a timely manner unless it can be framed in such a way as to be appealing to today’s corporate and political elite. The elites typically have an interest in maintaining the status quo, but can sometimes be tempted to change their ways if the benefits of doing so exceed the potential risks of trying to maintain things how they are. For example, corporate investors may be tempted by potential for profits in nascent energy industries or commercial opportunities in entertainment and/or communications. Another way to look at this is that the cost of doing business today’s way would have to be perceived as sufficiently risky to embrace tomorrow. Fortunately, this is inherently compatible with the philosophy of markets. All that remains to be done is to change the rules of the game to make it possible.

The second comment is that a ‘revolution’ of sorts could also be achieved through the court of public opinion. This is far more appealing in a democratic sense, and would ideally be used in conjunction with the first proposition. In fact, this could be an important step in creating the pressure to establish new rules to the game. However, I would like to point out that it is a rare thing indeed that revolutionary change succeeds without the consent or support of at least some significant portion of the political and commercial elite. I am aware of no contradictory examples in history. Ideally, a combination of consumer pressures and democratic pressures, coupled with new market opportunities in a sustainable society, will align the interests of a sufficient portion of the general public and the powerful.

Otherwise, I propose that our move into the future will happen in a haphazard and patchwork manner that is all too likely to degrade our natural capital to the point where technical progress will not be able to overcome scarcity, resulting in either a long economic decline or a crash. Fortunately, we humans have this thing called rationality, and are even capable of using it to consider the potential trajectories that our current actions can take.
___________________________________________

With a decent background in science, I do find it somewhat contradictory to make predictions about future developments. After all, evolution occurs in ‘response’ to (or rather, selection acts according to) environmental pressures, and does not by nature lead in any specific direction.

This poses two problems. The first is that we don’t really know where things would go if everything is left to its own devices (God knows the proponents of laissez-faire sure wouldn’t leave the markets to sort themselves out ... they’d be milking every cow in the field, teats or no). The second is that we don’t really know what ‘evolutionary’ pressures in future social and economic environments will be like, and thus have little ability to predict the effects that current trends, regulations or political outcomes may have on future events.

I was thinking today … as I’ve said before (a sort of upside down version of the concept of ‘survivorship bias’ in evaluation of financial management capabilities), that the best way to be wrong is to start making predictions. Then, I had a brilliant thought! But the best way to make correct predictions is to make lots of them! Anyways…my extensive use of the conditional and bracketed conditionalities may make this difficult to read, but also limit my statements to forms that are nearly self-proving. See the following sentence for an example…

In any case, what I’m saying is sort of self-evident, since it amounts to saying that if unfettered markets will lead to an environmental collapse, AND we do nothing about it, then there will be an environmental collapse. I happen to be very doubtful that markets will manage to align environmental and economic interests on their own, mostly due to the near impossibility of aligning the interests of current and future generations within the scope of a lax regulatory framework and a legal system which obliges CEOs to act in the interests of their shareholders’ maximum short-term profits.

The second of these need not be an inherent problem. Also, it would be unfair to set aside the potential role for technical progress. It will surely play a central role in some manner, but we may even demand more goods under greater efficiency depending on the elasticity of consumer demand. What this essentially points to is the need for political action to create pressures for a regulatory framework that will allow profit maximizing business to operate in a framework that makes some effort to align the interests of present and future generations, while stoking the fires of technical progress and entrepreneurship that will get us there.

______________________________________
This brings us to the classic question of whether there can be such a thing as a priori knowledge, where in a sense, the contradictions in Hume, Kant and Kierkegaard are informative. Hume thinks all knowledge is fundamentally based on experience, which shapes our ability to think. (Interestingly, at a biochemical or molecular level, we can sort of say that his position more or less true, in a sense). Kant, however, claims that all metaphysical knowledge must be a priori, since if it required our experience of the thing for it to be a truth, then it could not be a truth in and of itself (his interest being the development of a logically consistent theory of morality). However, since there isn’t much question that Kierkegaard was correct that the finitude of the human mind can never grasp the complexity of reality (except perhaps the very tiny bits of it we are exposed to), then how could blind ventures into a priori knowledge ever lead to greater spiritual progress than ventures made in the confines of our material existence?

I agree with Kant, but only with the exception that he has charged us to do the impossible, which we must then accomplish. Otherwise, what separates us ‘questioning beings’ from the monkey?

Monkeys are totally cool. But hey … nature only favours species that are able to prevent their collapse, and we may be the first to be able to do so self-consciously, through intelligence or any other means possible. Wouldn’t the truly natural thing be to harness our economy so as to ensure the long term fitness of our species? (In case you think this smacks of the tiniest hint of eugenics, I will use this context as a stepping stone in my next entry to show how the concept of eugenics can be nothing if not fundamentally flawed. My statement here is somewhat far-fetched in that it suggests that we may need to actively make sure that we still have a functioning environment to operate in. Eugenics is infinitely more far-fetched, since it presumes infinitely more knowledge, as I will show, and so it should be pretty easy to knock this nonsense out of the park).

On a somewhat different note, I decided today that humans will colonize the galaxy. It’s really the only choice, since our earth will only last for so long. After all, the sun will probably explode in a few billion years. Then I became sad, thinking that it would be so interesting to see how things turn out. Oh well, that’s life. Then I read an article on the successes and challenges of accommodating Muslims in European cities, and how local political institutions were effectively meeting these challenges.

While faith may sometimes manifest itself as enlightened inquiry (I have none of the first, and perhaps some of the second), I then considered the effects of blind faith, which has been a mobilizing factor for conflict over the ages.

On balance, consideration of such conflict led me to think that humanity’s development is far more likely to follow the experience of the Vikings in Greenland. I would never say that we’d be better off if no one had faith, but faith and enlightened inquiry are a contradiction that few minds will happily embrace.

Given these theoretical and historico-empirical problems, I think I will have to settle for the following … I decided today that, if inter-cultural cooperation and mutual respect develop to the point where the major religions of the world can reconcile themselves to the fact that they are embarking on different, yet similar paths of spiritual develoment, all of which are legitimate and meaningful, then we may one day play in the stars.

The nature of a recent email exchange with a fundamentalist Christian who believes that God appointed Harper, however, leads me to believe that religion will be the primary force that prevents humanity from ever reaching the heavens.


Is this a reflection of experience, an a priori reasoning (where Manichean faith prevents cooperation or reconciliation), or an indication of the sheer impossibility of the individual mind to perceive the infinite complexity of reality? I suppose there is comfort for some people in saying “God knows” (which I consider to be a close equivalent to saying "reality is"), but it isn’t going to get me one iota closer to knowing.

OMG!!! As I wrote a title (the last thing I did), “We’re all made of stars” by Moby just came on. Here’s the chorus… “People they come together, people they fall apart, no one can stop us now, we’re all made of stars.” It was on random from a pretty large playlist. OK, I give us a 1 in 4516 chance. From an evolutionary standpoint, things are looking good!