Moat politics

The federal elections a week ago - and so far still undecided - inundated Australians with policies, plans and promises from all directions. To compare their material with the concerns raised by letter writers to the daily newspapers provided an interesting contrast. It led to the common complaint by many that voting was becoming increasingly frustrating. When once it used to be a matter of choosing the most attractive party it has now turned into voting for the least unattractive. Clearly, something is amiss. Which brings me to the following.

Suppose there are a number of trades people who make profound errors (say, connecting pipes so that they leak, or not knowing how to wire up a house). What would it take to point out the mistakes and have them fixed? Or, more precisely, what would it take for somebody to walk into a particular office and say, "There is something wrong here and that's what needs to be done"?

Surely, sooner or later that advice would be taken up - after all, its proof is there for all to see.

On the other hand -- when it comes to decisions that affect an entire country, our ruling class is impervious to any suggestion, advice, or warning, regardless how serious the situation. At the most, polite standard letters are sent thanking the concerned writer for their time - and that's it.

To go back to the previous example, suppose nothing is done about the problem. Pipes are left leaking, people continue to be electrocuted. It may be difficult to speculate about the exact shape the building pressure will take, but one can reasonably assume it would be considerable.

Why then do we allow other problems to grow until they reach calamitous proportions? How is it that we take it as given that a politician simply refuses to listen to a complaint of a serious nature, especially when the evidence for its existence can be established clearly and unambiguously? Issues such as the war in Afghanistan come to mind, or our drug laws - both examples draining hundreds of millions of dollars from our nation and causing so many useless deaths as a consequence.

Are our politicians of the opinion that the halls of government have bestowed upon them such unassailable wisdom nowhere else to be found among the width and length of the land, as a result of which every minute given over to us common ignoramuses is a minute wasted away from their profound musings?

(Question: when was the last time our political betters held forth on transhumanism, or discussed the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?)

Similar issues present when approaching some academics - not all, I hasten to add - who only rise from their intense focus on ordained matters when they can perceive an a priori relevance to their status.

It seems society's upper echelons have managed to surround themselves with a virtually impenetrable moat that keeps the multitude away from their towers.

I am reminded of Poe's "The Mask of the Red Death", in which the illustrious gathering was rudely brought to a halt by someone wearing the mask of Death.

Only it wasn't a mask.

Refugees - a mini course in basics

Watching the refugee issue - the influx, the debates, the violence - it becomes obvious some lesson in basics is needed. Here it is.

1. Have ten dollars in your pocket. Now take out twenty. Can't do it? Correct.

No howling, no weeping, no fierce statement of goodwill can change that.

2. Have ten people in a house and supply them with a hundred kilowatt hours per day in energy. Put in machinery requiring two hundred kilowatt hours per day and tell them to run it. They can't.

No howling, no weeping, no fierce statement of goodwill can change that.

3. Take a hundred people and evaluate their skills in carpentry. On a scale of 1 to 10 they achieve a 5. Now tell them to make furniture equivalent to a level of 10. They won't.

No howling, no weeping, no fierce statement of goodwill can change that.

4. Measure the accomplishments of a thousand people in some district and compare their standards with the outside. Whatever the result, it will reflect the combined ability of those people.

No howling, no weeping, no fierce statement of goodwill can change that.

5. Ask a million people comprising a society what they know about themselves compared to societies beyond their borders. They will be more familiar with their own and know less, if anything, about the others.

No howling, no weeping, no fierce statement of goodwill can change that.

Human migration has existed on this planet for as long as there were humans. Apart from the last five decades or so two major factors governed their performance: the availability of space and the competition between locals and newcomers unregulated by an outside authority.

Now, this is no longer the case. Space is running out or has disappeared already, and governing entities have acquired an influence over local legislations. In addition we have developed a mindset - confined to the West - which has become obsessed with the plight of others somewhere in the world.

Not only is that mindset driven by emotion in the face of reality, it is highly selective and refuses to accept the fundamental laws which apply to any eco-system. When transposed into the human realm they are reflected in the five points above.

Energy in a closed system is finite. Use part of it for one thing and it becomes unavailable for something else.

Resources are no longer abundant as they once were. As environmentalists never tire of telling us, it has become unsustainable to neglect the balance between generation and use.

Competition between individuals, demographics and nations still exists as it always has. It matters whether any such unit foregoes its desire to keep up and is falling behind.

In the end no outside force can alter the general ability of a people to shape their destiny. However good or bad the conditions in a certain country are, the ultimate determinant of those conditions is the capacity and will of its inhabitants.

At any scale, one's home will always inform its residents first and foremost; knowledge about the lands beyond the border needs to be worked for and doesn't come readily. Even today's opportunities for travel do not teach the tourist what it really means having to deal with the daily travails in a Third World country. And remember, the problems exist because the inhabitants made them so.

When it comes to refugees therefore - or migrants in general - five questions suggest themselves.

1. If money needs to be spent on local issues, why is it used on others outside our control?

2. If resources are becoming sparse, why devote them to areas with the least promise?

3. If quality of output is a function of quality of input, why do we suddenly forget this relationship when it comes to dysfunctional societies?

4. If it requires a certain degree of skill to achieve higher standards, why dilute them with members of a region which demonstrably falls below our level?

5. Why do we harness ourselves to the whims of decision makers who have no idea what the notion of a dysfunctional society actually stands for, and who probably wouldn't survive more than a month under those conditions?

Why do we make it so easy for our competitors to win?

How dumbing down kills

Over the last few days Brisbane’s Courier Mail ran a series of articles on the problems alcohol causes. During the night the streets around night spots fill with drunken revelers and violence is often the result. So much so that over a period of three months just under 112,000 were admitted to Queensland hospitals as a consequence of alcohol-fueled violence.

(By the way, the manner in which the figures were presented is interesting in itself. The article focuses on Brisbane and particularly Fortitude Valley, a suburb featuring a high concentration of bars and nightclubs. Yet the first set of figures mentions that alcohol was a factor in “25-30 percent of representations at emergency departments”, which covers the entire state. Then it says “The latest figures produced by Queensland Health showed that 373,000 people presented at its emergency departments in three months”. If we are pessimistic and accept 30 percent then there would have been 111,900 hospital admissions due to alcohol, and across Queensland as a whole. How many of those came out of Fortitude Valley is not mentioned. This is not to deny there is no issue, but the reporting does veer towards the sensational)

In any case, it helps to consider the situation in terms of human activity systems.

For a system to function on an ongoing basis it needs resources which play their part in its overall set of dynamics. The higher the complexity the system achieves, the greater the draw on resources. For the system to remain sustainable any measure that raises the level of complexity must sooner or later offer a return on the credit side of its ledger, since a debit has the effect of reducing the sustainability.

In the case of alcohol-induced damage a number of initiatives have been enacted in order to address the problem. Called the 17-point plan (Courier Mail, 21 Jul 09, “Lockout a failure”) they range from locking out patrons from re-entering a venue after 3am, to extra police in the district, to increased security at taxi ranks, to forcing hotel staff adopt various policies. They all have one thing in common: they cost money. Nor does any of those measures deal directly with the lout who throws personal responsibility to the wind and causes mayhem.

The result is an ever increasing burden to society while at the same time constructing an environment in which the irresponsible can act out their dysfunctional instincts. Rather than having to deal with their consequences even more funds are directed towards the training and protection of medicos who get attacked by drunken patients. In another article the next day we read that the emergency department of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital treats about 72,000 patients a year (around 200 per day) and “a higher proportion of patients were sicker than they were two decades ago”, and “Alcohol-related injuries had become more common in the under-25 age group, particularly among teenage girls” (Courier Mail, 22 Jul 09, “Abuse a constant threat to medicos”).

Conventional, and proven, wisdom has it that transgressions of behaviour need educational resources to prevent continuing damage being done; but that presupposes that the target represents a member of society who nevertheless remains a part of the general ameliorating and adjusting framework, a framework that in the end relates to the common standard. Remove the member from that standard and the educational process is left to perform in a social vacuum.

The experience related by the professionals in the field, be they medicos, doctors, police, or hotel staff, show the adjusting framework has been allowed to evaporate.

To force the system into a higher state of complexity through something like that 17-point plan effectively means shifting more resources towards a demographic that can now cause more damage as a consequence. The result is a spiral of dumbing down affecting society as a whole. Not only do the costs rise, the negativity spreads, leading to greater costs still, and so on.

Systems dynamics offer the solution: destructive elements require less resources, not more, for the entire system to remain within the envelope of sustainability.

The approach has been practised in the past. In frontier societies where a horse means the difference between survival and death horse thieves are not treated by an army of counsellors, they just hang them. Even more on the extreme side, indigenous cultures do not have the luxury of treating under-performers, initiation rituals decide whether a member of the tribe becomes accepted or simply abandoned.

We have advanced from those beginnings. Nevertheless, the principles still hold.

By their deeds ye shall know them

We are aware of our conscious thoughts but not more. The subconscious processes continue regardless of any filters that may be imposed later. Their hidden nature and sheer volume makes them powerful determinants of our actions. Evidence suggest these are in fact more powerful.

Thoughts, seen as functional dynamics, can be scaled up to wider society where ideations become its members and entire thought structures represent what has been called cultural memes. In principle the affinity relationships causing customs to grow or to shrink hold at the lower as well at the higher end of the spectrum. Underneath it all the subconscious still reigns.

Since filtering by the conscious mind leaves so much unseen, can its counterpart be identified nevertheless? As its very nature precludes direct observation we need to ascertain its presence and from that deduce an influence.

The first step focuses on the act of filtering. If the end result is in harmony with the remainder, what has become visible holds no surprises. On the other hand, if the filtering prevents contrary sentiments from coming to the fore, there is a dissonance between what is seen and what is not. In most cases the complexity of ideational constructs virtually ensures the latter.

At the higher end of the scale suppose certain people perform some actions over a period of time with intermediary results. Because cognitive processes do not stop, an ongoing evaluation takes place which includes the subconscious. Nor will the subconscious have disappeared if the results are in line with the original intent. Which begs the question, what do those outcomes really tell us about their initiators? Let's consider three examples.

The Australian government imposed what has been called an 'alcopop tax', raising the price of pre-mixed alcoholic beverages supposedly to stem teenage binge drinking. Critics dismissed it as mere revenue gathering and predicted an increase in alcohol consumption. A few months into this policy and security firms and nightclubs do in fact notice more intoxicated behaviour. Spirits are now consumed straight. If drunkenness had been a problem before, it is even more so now.

What were the policy makers thinking? The general public reads about their intent, but they all are aware of the result. Our conscious, well-behaved mind tells us letting your hair down is bad. Yet our subconscious toys with the idea of breaking rules. As we mature (for want of a better word) our memories hark back to a wild youth, chuckling as we tell each other those stories. The alcopop tax - catharsis for our rulers.

Second example. Speed limits on our roads are lowered on a continual basis. Accidents due to speeding (actually, due to insufficient skills at higher speeds) are with us as ever, and the much-touted government line "every k over is a killer" sits comfortably with our abysmal record in science education. The lower the limit the more frustrated drivers get, the more likely they are to break the law and the recriminations keep coming. At the same time no-one facilitates the raising of skills.

Who doesn't get a thrill from speed? The more confined you are the more you want to break out especially if you play the role of supervisor. From carnivals to roller coasters the escapes are there for all to see. Speed limits - another candidate for a catharsis.

The third example is the age-old bugbear of puritans, pornography. Whether ever so reluctantly revealed from the ruins of ancient Pompeii, or certain paintings behind thick drapes in monasteries, or the modern-day offerings on the internet, erotic visuals have always sent delicious tickles tip-toeing down the spines of the suppressed. The moralists' response? Censorship.

Rather than removing the exuberant nastiness from this world, naked humans kept coming. All censorship ever did was to push the purveyors towards more bullet-proof schemes to circumvent the restrictions. It always has been an art form, if not in execution then certainly in delivery. Not even the most cantankerous denier could fail to spot the relationship. So much so that the heavier the cloak of righteousness the greater the opportunity to practice one's black art underneath.

Judge people by their deeds, not words - it's nothing new. And the more deeds there are, the better to judge them with.

When not racist is racist

One of the more fascinating aspects of human activity systems is their tendency to produce opposites at the extreme end of a spectrum. Some intense intent A to avoid Z causes Z after all.

In the West we have become very careful to steer clear of any hint of racism, so much so that often measures are evoked which in fact lead to exactly that kind of sentiment. The lead-up to the current outcry against Indian taxi drivers in Queensland, Australia, is one example.

In order to be seen absolutely non-discriminatory towards foreign students the rules governing employment in the taxi industry had been largely suspended and as a consequence students from India availed themselves of the opportunity to drive taxis to supplement their income during their studies here.

Not only were they not tested on their knowledge of local streets but sometimes even their ability to drive a car needed to be questioned. Over the years the problems increased to the point where local taxi drivers - whether Anglo-Saxon, Asian or Indian for that matter - protested against the unfair practices which in turn impacted on their own employment conditions. The resultant publicity led to the general perception that Indian drivers are to be avoided.

As usual the perception is grounded in reality, but it is the generalisation derived from so many shared experiences that causes concern. Compared to world events the issue is minor, but it was considered noteworthy by Thaindian News informing Indians in Thailand and the story was picked up by news services in India itself.

In terms of system dynamics the steadily growing radius of conceptualisation can be observed to gradually extend the awareness of the system’s members but not further.

Racism is a phenomenon that lacks a sufficient cognitive reach to understand the consequences of a limited perception. As the system evolves these consequences become part of its knowledge base and avoidance measures are the result. They in themselves can be seen as a system which grows and becomes more and more influential. In the absence of mitigating factors however the measures become counterproductive. When the backlash sets in the very thing they opposed is given sustenance and attains a viable status within the wider context.

In other words, another system is born and quite possibly finds support in the previous set of notions that gave rise to the entire development in the first place. From racism to liberalism and back to racism.

In a fundamental sense this demonstrates how dangerous the obsession with an ideal can be. As nice as a perfectly clean world would be, some dirt is necessary to keep it moderately clean.

About the In-between

The other day James Graham Ballard died. He was known for his visions of dystopia, drawn from his own experiences of societies that succumb to the vagaries of fate.

He was one of a growing group of intellectuals concerned with the effects of politics, culture and power and what kind of environment they could produce if left to their own devices.

There is no doubt such exercises are worthwhile, and in the hands of a writer like Ballard these landscapes are indeed evocative.

Yet most of them concentrate on the result, the endpoint of a road travelled in a dream-like state from which the awakening is as sudden as it is destructive. For all their lessons, are those visions realistic?

Take The Drought, a future where pollutants have produced a film across the world's oceans that prevents evaporation. There is no more rain.

If pollutants are produced by industry, and industry relies on the multitudinous opportunity available in an essentially functioning world, then a reduction in resources - especially water - would surely diminish the effectiveness of industry and hence the spread of that water-resistant membrane.

Long before the planet awakes to an accomplished drought the signs would impinge upon the consciousness of people no matter how blind they would have been otherwise. Responses emerge, measures will be taken.

Far from dismissing the significance of potential disasters, the lead-up has its own dangers, and they are very real.

Factors such as the nature of those signs, who interprets them, what kind of power resides in those who perceive them, and to what extent do oppositions manifest - they all form a mixture which in itself creates precarious scenarios.

Any system exists because by and large it has settled itself into a state of interdependence with its environment. Change any one component and the effects are situated within the same mutuality that allowed the system to perform in the first place. The over-riding effect of the change is not so much derived from one component's nature, but the wider dynamics that result from a destroyed status-quo. It is here that the more real danger lies.

Nor is such a shift of concern a matter of convenience, not wanting to think about what a world-wide drought would mean for example.

In principle the interrelationships between pollution, industry and the oceans (even assuming that film was possible) are a function of complex systems, and so their step-by-step mitigating effects will play themselves out regardless of our judgmental interpretation of them.

As potentially pro-active beings humans have the capacity to abstract and think through the possibilities on offer. To put it mildly, it makes sense to use this capacity and consider any signs in terms of their perceived meaning by a particular demographic, culture or religion.

In the face of the current challenges it is not good enough to resort to more of the same; as if money spent so far should be augmented by even larger sums, as if already coercive governance should increase its pressure even more, as if one demographic's status inviting the allocation of resources should inevitably be cemented even further within a society's perception of itself.

All those responses belong to conventional situations. They become useless if not dangerous if applied to a newly emerging realm of the unfamiliar, a space where the possible gets redefined and where the impossible becomes part of existence.

East and West

Barack Obama visits Europe and gets the opportunity to speak with many of the world's leaders at the G20 summit about the economy. Next on the list is the gathering of NATO and the topic is America's foray into Middle Eastern entanglements. After this experience he lands in Turkey where he told them what they wanted to hear.

But not everyone there desires joining the European Union for the same reason. The secular part would appreciate membership for the political openness and its pragmatic opportunities. On the Islamic side the largely cosmopolitan mantle draped over a medieval religion bestows useful advantages. It is questionable whether either side cares too much about the deeper factors influencing the affects such a move would produce. The same goes for the US.

We have arrived at a junction in time when historical currents can well up from distant pasts.

Human affairs proceed along timelines that are relevant to the scales they represent. Comparisons can be drawn between a human life and the existence of a society or civilisation or culture. One is measured in decades, others in centuries, and cultures need millennia.

On that broad canvas the world of today offers three cultures that have several things in common. They managed to keep their long-term memory, they achieved self-knowledge, they are still active, and they possess mass. From east to west these are, China, India and Europe.

Each one of these can draw on thousands of years of history, each one of these can use their own glories and disasters to interpret the present, and they all are powerful enough to influence the planet through the mental resources coming from ancient sagas, generations of experience and intellectual achievements.

Just as the individual addresses a problem more effectively with a sound memory, so do societies deal with issues at their scale depending on their ability for recall. Lack of experience, forgetfulness, or the wilful burying of inconvenient events impoverish one's knowledge base. Without content to be processed wisdom cannot emerge.

When in the near future oil runs out, when the effects of climate change overtake the contemporary plans of everyone, when the scarcity of resources impacts on standards everywhere, then the sheer drama which accompanies the destruction of the status quo will make itself felt. The aspirations, indeed obsessions, of so many interest groups are bound to join the stirred mix of smaller nations in which the multitude of incoherences add to the chaotic scenario.

When disaster strikes one does not call upon children to save the situation. Similarly, at the level of global humanity it takes the maturity of age to bring order into chaos.

Europe, India and China fulfill the equation. Even in geometric terms a triangle makes for stability, and a council of three strikes a useful balance between variance and homogeneity.

At the moment Islamic extremism enthralls our minds and holds our resources to ransom. Yet against the dangers building on the horizon they should be a mere thorn in the side at worst, an interesting interlude at best. Failing nations unable to leave their traditional shackles behind should hardly be a concern for that part of humanity which is capable of perceiving the future. Nor is it for the US to tell Europe whether ambiguous Turkey should or should not enter its realm.

A triumvirate of great minds has better things to do than enmesh itself in the inconsolable minutiae of the naïve.

And even in a space station the thoughts from a Parzival, a Mahabharata, or a Confucius have something to say.