Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Peace On Earth

Peace on Earth, goodwill to men. Of course there would be a lot of peace on earth if it weren’t for men. I am reminded of GK Chesterton, when asked what the matter with the world was wrote simply, “I am.”
In that vein let us consider what we, personally, can do to increase peace on Earth. There is little I can do to affect fighting in Darfur or Afghanistan. Even if I commanded armies and millions of dollars I am not sure if there is a clear road to peace I could follow. So let us think smaller and more relevant to our own lives and spheres of action.
What can we do increase peace amongst our friends and families? The fighting between friends or family is often of a peculiar kind. The combatants do not really have anything against each other and often times have a lot of compatible interests and goals. It seems to me that often times these fights escalate and get out of control because of pride. Neither party is willing to admit fault and make peace. In a nutshell they would rather be right than be reconciled.
Contrast this with the example that our savior Christ set for us. Christ in fact was always in the right. Nevertheless he set this aside and let himself be counted among the wrong doers, yea, he let judgment come upon him as the guilty one who had erred. The reason for this was so that reconciliation could be effected between the Father and his children – so that the prodigal son could be washed, leave behind his rebellion and return home. I am awed by the greatness of spirit that he has.
Unlike Christ we are not always in the right. But the path indicated for us is clear. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors the scriptures say. Of you it is required to forgive all men. Now in no way should my words be construed to mean that we should allow evil to flourish unchecked in its cloak of darkness and secrecy. No evil must be resisted and revealed whenever we get the chance. In my experience most people are neither evil nor very good especially in the small circle of family or friends. Let us than pray to forgive and pray for the humility to recognize our wrongs and apologize. Our even let ourselves be thought of as wrong.
My I always seek peace more than to be justified in my own eyes. Or another words may I seek God’s approval first, last and always.
Amen.

Focused Learning.

I propose that education be changed from its current traditional structure of 4-5 classes at a time to 2-3 at a time. Each class would have a similar number of hours and each semester would have a similar number of credits. You would start with two classes go up to three and end on another two classes. (Ninth grade up). I think that this is advantageous because it more closely fits the way people work and think, focusing on a few things at a time aside from routine caretaking activities.
First this has the advantage that more learning is likely to take place. Neural connections form as pathways are repeatedly utilized i.e.
heavy use (CTRL+F Homosynaptic plasticity). A little there a little here isn’t as effective as sustained heavy use.
As part of this system I would propose that the beginning and end of classes be staggered somewhat eliminating finals weeks and midterm clusters. This is feasible with 2-3 but not 4-5 classes because you have less staggering (2 weeks v four). This would be a vast improvement under the current system as the stress of everything hitting the fan at once would be alleviated. Each class would have a gear up stage, homework and test stage and then project and final as its last stage.
Scheduling could be more flexible as you could not take the end of semester classes and end your semester early – allowing you to take a job or an internship. Alternatively if you need to squeeze in a few more credits in order to get back on track you could delay your summer.
The main downside I can think of for this system is for someone who is trying to figure out what they want to major in. In that case the current mile wide and an inch deep approach is probably the best.
Still, as presently constituted, school can be
very stressful. With less areas to focus on at one time this would be lessened somewhat.

Friday, December 19, 2008

The Modern Moral System

Let’s define morality thusly: It is a code of conduct making it possible for people to coexist in a mutually profitable and sustainable fashion.
First we should ask if there is in fact a generally accepted morality. I think the answer is yes, as evidenced by the fact
that people still generally get along and society is still functioning.

Moral Relativism is said by some to be on the ascendant. That seems ridiculous to me. I have never met and don’t believe any true moral relativist exists. For more discussion check this out (after 'chestnut' particularly). Moral relativism is used as a shield to deflect moral judgement not intended to be an actual moral system.
The first candidate we have is the diminishing structure of traditional morality. I say diminishing because no universally respected authority is still promoting it in our society.
The second candidate does have powerful forces promoting it but it only as a limited proscription. You might have encountered it as ethics training either at work or perhaps at school. This ethics training is attempting to promote a morality aimed specifically for institutions such as corporations or government agencies. Institutions are large groups of people coexisting together so it is hardly surprising that they recognize the need for morality. However they limit themselves to work related situations, not because good family morality doesn’t benefit them but because their ability to affect it is small, the risks are large (sue, sue, sue), and it doesn’t offer a competitive advantage as an increased moral climate benefits all companies.
Make no mistake, economics as we know it is impossible without a universal morality. Check out the popes
musings on the subject.
The funny thing to me about this though is that these codes of conducts almost universally frown on romantic relationships – and this even though they want to stay out of family morality. This is because they have learned by experience the danger that these pose. This strikes me as funny because people who often disdain traditional morality agree with it in one of its basic assertions: sexual relationships can be dangerous to society. It offers no real solution (avoid fallout!) to this problem though, unlike traditional morality which attempts to channel it into acceptable venues where everyone knows the rules.


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A review: Mencius UR

I read Mencius UR sometimes. He is insightful and interesting because he says things no one else says and makes compelling arguments from them. He describes himself as a Jacobite (Carlist) and spends a lot of time pointing out the failures of democracy. Mainly he highlights political power feedbacks known as machines (modern forms). I would summarize his argument against democracy as saying that its basic proposition that government must be by the consent of the governed means that the business of government then becomes to manufacture that consent (or reward those who do). He shows that most agencies, the press and educators work together to control and mold public opinion to a ‘progressive’ agenda and that is the reason that both parties consistently move left over time. He spends a lot of time focusing on how the resulting governance has a lot of crime, and wastes peoples lives in meaningless bureacratic quagmire. He compares modern governance to government in the gilded age to highlight effective goverment (At least as far as crime).
To remedy this situation he advocates as the ultimate solution (there are a lot of compromise solutions he talks about) the division into city states ruled as corporations with executives having ultimate power to combat crime and manage things efficiently without the necessity to feed a political machine. Human rights are to be secured and agreed upon by the complete freedom of people to move to any city state that will have them if they are unhappy with their current locale/freedoms.

The irony is that Mencius is the ultimate progressive. He wants a more ‘scientific’ government. His system is very internationalist and globalized.
He sees corporations as having the most rational governance so it becomes the model for his utopia. Moving, while attractive to a progressive is not really a good solution to a Tory who feels attachment to his native land, his town history, his roots etc. That as a guarantee of rights seems loathsome to a true Tory.
Unlike most progressives he realizes the goals of progressivism are ultimately hindered by democracy, and the two are not naturally symbiotic.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Fundamental Right?

The idea of freedom is tied up inextricably with the idea of rights. It is impossible to imagine freedom without imagining rights that attend it. The concept I wish to explore today is that of fundamental right. In a nutshell it is the right which safeguards all other rights. If lost all other rights are only temporarily granted on sufferance of your lord and master. With just this one right all other rights can be expected to be gained, and the people are in a position to make deals with their rulers regarding accepted rights. I will examine the right to bear arms and the right to vote as fundamental rights as well as some other possible candidates.
The right to bear arms as the fundamental guarantee of rights is an old concept. Indeed the idea of rights stems from the Magna Carta which was signed and kept in place under threat of arms from the governed. The idea of this as the fundamental right is that ultimately your rulers will be afraid to oppress as they and their supporters will be risking defeat. As Mao says, “power flows from the barrel of gun”. To support this as the candidate for universal rights one needs merely to consider the American Revolution, the Roman revolt and every other successful revolution. To argue against it one need merely bring up every failed armed revolt in history of which there are an abundance.
The right to vote seems to be merely a formalized version of the right to bear arms. The military right rests on the ability to project and resist military power. That is based on numbers. Who has the most people on their side can be favored to win any military conflict. More recently the right to vote has become based on consent. Considering recent failed attempts to rig elections or ignore their results one doesn’t see it devolve into military action. Rather what happens is that people refuse to cooperate with the ruler(s) because they see their authority as illegitimate. In favor of this as the fundamental argument we can observe the general trend in democratic countries of increasing rights for its citizenry. There is however the maxim, “one man, one vote, one time.” What now the Roman/Weimar Republic?
Two other proposed fundamental rights are as follows: Tenure or in other words the right to be protected from the outrages of fortune -even of your own devising, Immigration in a multi state system – in this system you pick your government and rulers by voting with your feet.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Vox Populi Vox Dei

A major transistion in theory of governance has taken place. We have transistioned from a theory of goverment that held that goverment was acceptable because it was the will of god or the gods and that right flowed from them to one where goverment is only legitimate if it is by consent of the governed. Note that this does not neccesarily mean democracy merely consent.
We can see this in the langauge. We go from the "divine right of kings", "mandate of heaven", "vox dei vox populi" to the phrase "the will of the people".
This change in phrases reflects the belief, as expounded by Locke, that people have the right and the responsibility to govern. His is not an argument that they would be the best governors - but that it is their duty to so choose their goverment. Some things in life you have to do yourself and according to this view goverment is one of them.
This has changed everything. Religion is no longer worth controlling because power does not flow from it. Freedom of religion then becomes inevitable. Religious wars have all but ceased where this tenet is accepted. Instead that energy is now channeled to controlling the hearts and minds of the people - manufacturing consent if you will. This is done either through the soft persuasion of a political campaign and power of political networks or the hard persuasion of secret police, information control, and gulags. Both stalin and hitler accepted this tenet of Locke's. That is why their regimes were both so concerned with controlling what their people were thinking and they both acted in similar ways even though their philosophies were wildly different in other ways.
The first order of business for all rulers is to stay in power. If rulers will not manufacture the neccesary consent then rest assured another will.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Democracy & Federalism

There are many supporters of a federalist system. It is not difficult to see why. A federalist government hopes to enjoy the advantages of a large nation and without its disadvantages of crushing conformity and oppression. It enjoys the military strength and diplomatic clout that comes through sheer numbers. It also enjoys the advantages of a large heavily integrated free trade network existing within its borders. Unlike a centralized state however, as many issues and powers are held on a local level, it has flexibility in governing. Problems can be dealt with swiftly and sensibly by administrators on the ground and intimate with the circumstances. Additionally the smaller governments can experiment with various laws and social institutions as well as a adopting those successfully pioneered by others.
It is dismaying to note however, that democracy by nature seems to steadily eradicate federalism and centralize power. As an example the United States Government (USG) has undergone a steady transformation from its beginning, becoming more powerful relative to state governments and more democratic. Some of the powers it has gained are increased taxation authority, regulatory oversight of businesses/banks, a standing army, voter qualifications and many more.
To consider why this might be we will consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Slavery was a big issue at that time. Lincoln was unequivocal in his stance against slavery. Douglas vacillated and said that slavery was a matter for states to decide. In the later presidential campaign douglas was decisively defeated because neither pro nor anti-slavery faction supported him. So his federalist stance looked weak. Additionally it doesn’t hold any appeal for voters. Essentially the message is: vote for me so you all can settle the issues later. That’s nice but just not competitive when compared to someone who wants to settle the issue now, decisively and forever.
That seems to be the primary reason for centralization to occur if the top layer is highly democratic. Power wins elections. Not only can we see this in the context of a social crusade like that of slavery but also more crassly in machine politics. Rewarding supporters, getting benefits to the voters who elected you is all much easier in the context of expanding power of the central government.
A non democratic top layer on the other hand will run into problems if it tries to grab power. The sub entities’ (states) will band together and oppose what they see as a curtailing of their privileges. One can see this in the early American senate when senators where more like ambassadors for their respective states. Compromises where each state decides it’s policy would be an appealing solution for this body in many cases. A similar designed organization – The UN – also shows no sign of growing more powerful as time goes by.
Has this decreasing federalism been bad or good? A stronger central government was instrumental in ending slavery, and winning the civil rights fight of the sixties. On the other hand the federal government seems incapable of decreasing in size or in changing programs to meet changing circumstances. For example social security has structural flaws, most think it will fail, most want something that fills its function. However there is almost zero chance of any major reforms. One imagines that if each state had their own version that various alternatives would have been tried and a better system would be in place in most places.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Multiculturalism

Is it wrong to want to preserve your own culture? There are many groups that have no desire to assimilate into the mainstream. They wish to preserve their way of life and the things that make them the people that they are. They don’t want to be equal so much as they want to be left alone to be themselves. The Aborigines of Australia come to mind as an example of this. In the United States they are groups that have to a certain degree that same viewpoint, as examples: Rednecks, African Americans and the even better example of the Amish. (Note: This is a view held by parts of these groups, perhaps not even a majority).
I sympathize with this sentiment; I must say however that I think that it is a losing battle. First off, it is pretty much a one way trip to assimilation, with a few exceptions. Attempts to recreate a culture tend to create a new one, not continuity with the old one. The majority of historic cultures are dead – why are ours any different? Thirdly, the disadvantages of turning your back on the modern world are heavy in deed. One must participate in it. Participation is the beginning of assimilation.
A solution to this problem – an attempt to have the best of both worlds – is multiculturism. It has had some successes and a lot of failure. When successful we get a vibrant city where cultures enrich each other and artistic/cultural/scientific advancement take place.
Failures of multiculturism are numerous; from Belfast to the suburbs of Paris to the Balkans. The solution to these problems is often the same: separation of the different cultures. Consider the walls of Belfast, the canton system of Switzerland, separate countries in the Balkans, Abraham and Lot separating their camps. In other words, uniculturalism was the solution. Why did multiculturalism fail in those cases?
I don’t know but here are some possibilities: People just like to be with people like them. As an example people tend to congregate on blogs that are of like political orientation, get their news from similar POV’s etc.
Another problem is that it is difficult to interact successfully with people who have different customs. You have no way to judge if they are taking advantage of you, or how one is expected to behave. Yes, it is possible to learn those things but it comes at higher cost, oftentimes people decide just to retreat turtle like into isolation.
The final problem with multiculturism is that its successes always seem to be in a large cosmopolitan city – London or New York. The problem with that is cities are often population sinks – cities that rely on immigration to maintain its population. If multiculturalism only works where people have given up on future generations then it is not sustainable.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Lessons of World War One

Everybody learned the wrong lessons of WW1. In drawing on its experience the Germans tried to create an army that could win the battle of the Marne. The British and French on the other hand were more interested in winning the battle of the Somme. Because of fundamental changes in the underlying mechanics of warfare those battles would not re-occur.

As a bit of background: There are three basic types of warfare. The first is raid and counter-raid. This is the type of warfare that tribes usually use. The idea is essentially to wear your opponent down by killing him or destroying his means to make war. This is attrition warfare.
The next type of warfare is line warfare. You form a battle line of irresistible power and grind your enemies to dust and go right through them. You might get fancy with your skirmish line or how you present your line for advantages but the basic idea is just to power your way through your enemies. Once you crush your opponents’ army you can dictate terms. This originated amongst city-states.
The third sort is maneuver warfare. Here the idea is to attack your opponent where he is least prepared to receive the attack (such as the rear of the line or other targets.) Essential to this type of warfare is either taking advantage of the fog of war or being much faster than your opponent.
Fourth there is a special case which is siege or blockade. I call this a special case and not a type because it will be carried out by a line, or by raid or by seizing objectives before your opponent can react.

In World War 1 some say machine guns created the stalemate. Not true, artillery supplied by rails was always the dominant factor on the western front. More soldiers were killed by artillery than ever were by machine guns.

In practices lines could be broken; the Germans perfected the technique of rolling artillery barrages first gas and then explosives to break through lines. The Allies also broke lines on occasion.
In practice breaking a line didn’t change the stalemate because a new one would re/form just behind it. Logistical reasons made continuing the assault increasingly disadvantageous because artillery needs tons of ammunition to break lines. As you penetrate your line is in disorder, running out of ammunition as you get further away from the railhead. Your opponent rushes in reinforcements on his rails. Result: new line forms, repeat, until you can’t break their line anymore. Essentially, attempting to create maneuver warfare in this fashion is a failure because the enemy knows exactly where you are sending your maneuver troops (through the breakthrough) and they are able to send more men and material there faster than you are.
In fact, for this reason the Schlieffen plan was not maneuver warfare, it was line warfare. The allies knew about it and were prepared. The only maneuver that took place in that campaign came from the allies at the Marne winning them that battle. Since the Germans almost won through pure might, they would have been better off just going straight for Paris like von Moltke.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Public Schools are Relics.

Public school systems are a relic as its educational approach is to treat kids like widgets sent through an assembly line.
This is understandable. It is the result of a wide spread belief of educators in tabula rasa. (This is another way of saying that teachers believe that teaching is a more important part of education than learning, hardly surprising) Also our public education system was mostly formed during the first half of the twentieth century – when mass production was king and seen as the method for quality, quantity and efficiency.
Compare the idea of curriculums to an assembly line. It details what happens in grade 1 which is built on in grade 2 all proceeding at a pre-ordained pace. Teachers give you the desired educational packets to prepare you for the next phase of your education – each step incrementally closer to the final goal.
The problem with this approach is that learning is not something that is done to you; it is something that you do. Now, this point can be muddled so I want to make a clarification. There are different types of learning, some require memorization and repetition – like learning the times tables or vocabulary words of a new language. Others require you to think and reason (using rules) -- like algebra or making sentences in that new language.
The first type may be achievable in an education assembly system. The second type of learning clearly cannot be and will lead to boredom and incomprehension for the student and failure for the system as a whole. Since the first type of education is valueless without the second, the underlying organizational assumptions about education need to change.
I’m not going to invent an entire system of education here from scratch but here is something interesting that I found on the subject:

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kchi9804.htm

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Social Effects of Globalisation

Globalisation transforms societies. It alters the internal balance of prestige in a nation. Those factions most benefitted seek to accelerate the process of globalization by using their increased influence and prestige with the rulers and the populace. Despite periods of reaction and breakdowns in the international order they are generally successful.
By way of further explanation: A non globalised country is dominated naturally by warriors (loot, land, triumphs) and religious (stability, population) elites. Artists/Entertainers of various stripes have their place. Merchants, scientists/magicians are generally on the fringe.
Globalisation throws these elites and their counterparts from other nations together. This has a synergistic effect for the merchants (trade), scientists/magicians (flow of ideas) and cultural elites (bigger audiences). They become more important to the nation and their prestige increases. The once dominant elites falter. Warriors are effected as war becomes more ritualized and its outcome more predictable and less profitable compared to trade. Religion suffers also. Different customs and beliefs makes people question the ones they have been taught. Exposure to different self contained religious systems causes doubt to take place and allows for atheism and agnosticism to take root. The faithful that do remain are generally less committed than their predecessors despite momentary reactions.
The new elite then conspire with their counterparts in other nations to their mutual benefit. Globalisation then increases not necessarily because it now benefits its host nation but because it benefits those who are most advantaged by globalisation that already exists. Nations are powerless to stop this because to reduce globalisation dramatically has drastic and dire consequences. (See Smoot-Hawley, Great Depression, WWII)
Consider the two great eras of globalisation in world history: late antiquity and the past couple of hundred years. How well does this match their pattern?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Saved from what?

A big theme of Christianity is salvation. This is perhaps confusing to outsiders – I imagine they wonder what exactly do they need to be saved from. I think that this issue is further clouded by those who believe that they are ‘saved’ already and that no more salvation is expected to be forthcoming.

It is reasonable for their neighbors to look at them and ask themselves, “Saved from what?” Clearly believers aren’t saved from death, sickness, poverty or even sin. If by 'saved from sin' we mean that sin (even their own) no longer has power to wreck their life or corrupt their soul. I believe that faith in Christ does begin to save people from these things, such as sin, sickness in some cases. Probably the biggest effect that can be observed is that it saves people from despair.
I am reminded of a person who told me, as she was coughing and barely able to move that she had prayed to God and that she was therefore healed. My suggestion that she should see a doctor and continue to pray was met with indignation – anything of that sort would indicate that she didn’t have faith in Christ. According to her if she wasn’t healed it was because her faith was imperfect. Anything other than believing would leave her unhealed.
Christ saves us from sin, sickness, hunger, and death yet he works in his own time table and for his own purposes. As is said ‘For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.’ Thus we see salvation is something we are looking towards, not something that we have the full substance of yet.
He is seeking to perfect us, fill us with love (salvation from sin), redeem us from the our implacable enemy of mortality – which not only plagues us with infirmities but also separates us with death.

Therefore we can not be saved any faster than we allow Christ to direct our lives and live according to his teachings. Salvation is a process not a box to be marked at sometime in our life.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Private Profit, Socialized Losses

Should governments bail out banks that are in danger of failing? In a real sense this is a silly question. I would restate it, “should the government bail itself out” for clarity.
Every government has its central bank. In the United States this is the Federal Reserve or the Fed. It lends money to banks and sets the interest rates for those loans. In short it is a bank for bankers. Unlike real banks however it can create money whenever there is a panic. (That is why you hear in the news about the fed lowering interest rates in order to prevent a recession) Additionally it regulates banks and banking practices. Together with the FDIC, and the treasury department, the federal reserve more or less controls banking in the United States. Most other countries have central banks as well, though often more coherently structured.
Any analysis of why this current financial crisis happened is therefore, ultimately going to point back to the Fed. Dems blame lack of regulations for the crisis (see Pelosi) while Conservatives blame regulations (See Community Reinvestment Act) that encouraged bankers to make subprime loans thus starting the housing bubble. In any case the argument is about what the Fed should do/have done, not whether a federal agency should control banking. Since a federal agency made the mistakes, it makes no sense to punish banks for it. As an aside remember that a banks job is make as many loans as possible with interest rates that accounts for risks and bring a profit. In a bubble this leads to unhealthy practices as any bank that stays out will be overtaken by its competitors.
Cries that the government is socializing a huge sector of the economy are ludicrous. It is already socialized, and has been since before the Great Depression. There is no party or major candidate that advocates reversing this and going back to the good old days of private banking and bank runs.
I wish to touch on a theme carried over from the last post. In a specialized globalized economy there is a double incentive not to have kids. First each kid requires more care and attention to succeed in a specialist economy. Secondly the opportunity costs of each kid are greater as the parents are wealthier and have more opportunity as compared to a less specialized economy. I reject the notion that kids were money makers in agricultural society as it seems silly.

The incentives for having kids also decrease. Society will be less geared towards kids and less supportive. This manifests itself not only in direct support for the parents but in society itself presenting dangers to your children. Drugs come to mind, although any thing that causes a child to disdain family life and his own family is of equal import. How awful to spend your best years raising a child and then have to watch them get sucked into a lifestyle that permanently estranges them from you.

Yet parents labor on. I want to express appreciation to my own parents and especially my mother for what they did to raise me. As has been said, ‘No greater love hath any man than this that he lay down his life for his friend.’ this makes me think of mothers. I think there is no greater example of human love than those good mothers who care for their kids, worry about them and strive so they can have a good start in life. Even the sort of thing Mother Teresa did seems only to equal it.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Interdepenency of Technology and Population

Technologies require humans to invent, make and use them. Some, such as ironworking are lo tech, because the knowledge and skill to use that technology can be mastered by a family group. Higher technologies require more complex organizations.
Thus the highest technology that can be maintained is dependent on these three things: population, specialization and organization. The organization occurs on three levels. First is the actual team of specialists that make the technology. Second is the general population that provides resources but aren’t directly involved – such as taxpayers and trading partners. Third, whatever group that requires that technology – the consumer. Organization in this sense means globalization. In fact high technology often requires a complex economic/technological ecosystem in order to exist.
An example of this are computers. The first computers required a team of specialists, drawing on the resources of a large body of people (The U.S.) motivated by the government (or university) of that interconnected population. It required many subsidiary hi technologies such as cheap vacuum tubes. Since those humble beginnings computers have required larger teams relevant to an increasingly larger and interrelated network of a specialized hi tech economy. This is demonstrated in the increasing cost of more sophisticated fabs (making more capable chips) - which are dependent on larger markets to pay for it. Computers have become more hi tech against a backdrop of increasing globalization, specialization and, yes, population growth.
Higher tech depends on interconnected specialized population. The effect of hi tech on its host populations so far has been detrimental. Almost all first world nations now have below replacement fertility rates. Generally exceptions are the result of sub populations that aren’t so specialized yet, due to historic reasons.
Hi tech effects the fertility rate in two ways. First, children require more investment because they will need to be specialized (educated) to be successful. This requires more parental involvement to oversee their child’s education etc. At the same time, the parents time is becoming relatively more valuable because the parent is more specialized. The obvious solution to this dilemma is to have less children. That is indeed what has been happening.
It seems that hi tech, and the societies that currently support it are doomed. There are a few solutions to this problem. The first is a radically conservative one. The second is just plain radical – and unproven. The outside hope is a technological miracle – which would radically change our way of life. In any case, the world as we know it is passing by. Tune in in 2040 when demographics are predicted to be in decline as the beginning of this change.
This has happened before. The de-globalization that occurred around 200-500 A.D took many hi technologies along with it: Aqueducts, quinqueremes, many mechanical devices, etc.

Monday, September 8, 2008

On Voting

National elections are coming. They have always struck me as curious examples of human irrationality. Voting is irrational. My vote will never make a difference as it is one against amidst millions. Please don’t trot out the few hoary examples of tied elections. Those cases are exceptionally rare. If the election were that statistically close we all know that judges and lawyers would determine the outcome.
So why do I vote? I vote because the church counsels it. We are counseled to consider the issues and pick what seems to be the best candidate. It seems that voting begins to be rational in these circumstances. The views of the church will then hold some weight with those seeking office in the land. Things important to the members of the church will only be defeated electorally speaking if other groups are pushing against them.
Voting is an individual action that benefits the group and then only if the group does it collectively. To vote then is similar to a soldier going to war (without risk and much less commitment) as it benefits the group primarily and the individual secondarily. The thing to do then is to not only vote but persuade your neighbors, family and friends to do the same. The group would presumably use its usual (social) methods to reward leaders/followers and punish non-compliance.
The implications of that in a multicultural society, where group identity is important yet increasingly more balkanized, is interesting.