In/tolerance without the ethics

One way or another the subject of tolerance - or the lack of it - always hovers around social and political issues. Whether it is the treatment of certain demographics, or immigration, or foreign policy in general, even if not articulated explicitly it remains the elephant in the room.

What effect tolerance and its opposite have can be examined away from the ethical and emotional by considering what these functionalities mean in terms of human activity systems.

Our current perspective is based on affinity relationships and how they come into being. As their name implies, they represent connections made possible by the content of representative states of the system's members such that a degree of synchronicity exists. The label 'member' can refer to neurons in the mind of an individual, they can equally stand for the citizens in a society. Right now we are dealing with the latter.

Any content, imported via the senses, turns into representative states. These states are unique to a given domain (a cluster of members) and, in a very real sense, define it. Any similarity between one domain and another in terms of their respective representative states produces an affinity between the two. Since any domain with its members is an importer of information as well as an exporter, not only do the internal states determine the quality of further information processing but so do any affinity relationships.

Processing means traversal across the members, and the greater the similarity between two or more domains the higher the probability the processes during the traversal will contain content from the entire set. Or, put another way, the higher the probability the traversal will include the set of domains and their members. All things being equal, the traversal will proceed along the path of similar content (higher degrees of similarity being favoured). However, representative states being merely representative, anything that modifies the states of some other domains can bring the latter within reach of the former, because both have become affinitive with each other.

For example, drugs that change the chemical metabolism among neurotransmitters can have the effect of producing associations that otherwise would have been unlikely if not impossible. Depressants modify the pathways such that negative connections, that is to say domains representative of what is perceived as negative by their host, possess a higher degree of probability of being traversed during processing and/or access than those being representative of more positive content. The converse is true in the case of stimulants.

Let us now focus more closely on our topic. A society that displays a certain measure of intolerance does so because within its sumtotal of perceptions, values and priorities it discriminates against manifestations that it sees as a sign of opposition to its nature. Since intolerance needs to be exercised for it to be recognised as such, that society will pro-actively seek out reasons to act out its attitude.

Note that affinity does not need something directly similar; it equally responds to the opposite (just as 'light' indirectly defines 'dark' and 'wet' indirectly defines 'dry').

Therefore, to understand what an intolerant society dislikes one only has to find out what it favours, and vice versa. In other words, what makes an intolerant society raise its opposition is as much part of its affinity envelope as are its values.

For that reason an intolerant society will interact - albeit antagonistically - with those sections it considers as, well, intolerable.

A tolerant society on the other hand sees no inherent reason to engage with different sections since the affinity relationships as described above do not hold. While there is no direct reason to engage, likewise there is no direct reason not to either.

If interaction engenders a certain familiarity and knowledge (due to the likelihood of traversals), we can expect an intolerant society to have more information about its disparate sections than a tolerant one. Note however that an antagonism does not preclude presumption, especially if driven by a need to distance oneself. How much that last factor influences the quality of information about the 'other' that is admitted into a domain is also a function of ideological intensity overall. (In this context it should be remembered that no society can be identified in terms of a single aspect only)

Examples of these relationships are not hard to find. Consider the reasons given for some intolerance towards a demographic or a custom by those who have come into contact with them, compared to the assumptions about the same held by those whose experience does not include a similar exposure. The difference can also be observed in arguments that arise when both sides seek to justify their opinions against each other, using their respective perception to bolster their positions.

In conclusion, having a diverse society does not in itself widen its intellectual scope; just as wisdom is not a direct result of the accumulation of data.

Should we be scared of aliens?

When discussing alien life forms science fiction writers either tend to delineate from existing circumstances and project into the future, or invent something completely new.

As to the first, since out of necessity only some aspects belonging to their starting point are used, the future represents an exaggeration of what is already. Hence it can't be a complete picture.

The other option is to leave the familiar altogether and construct a scenario without any reference to the known. What we get in this case is an idealised version of the writer's vision - not necessarily something positive in human terms, and it is a complete construct. So neither of them is helpful if we want to seriously consider the nature of intelligent aliens.

Yet there is a third option.

Since we are talking about alien life, we are considering complex, dynamic systems. CDSs follow certain rules and regardless of the content, in a functional sense they all are similar. On Earth human societies are and have been as varied as they come. Whether it was the ancient Phoenicians, the Mayas, the Russian Empire or the British, or whether some mountain community in Tyrol, certain features are shared by all of them. Even among relatively lower life forms we find traces of them.

Generally speaking, and focusing on intelligent life, they are -

1. Procreation: the most important of them all, it defines the life form's survival and its identity. The first forces any potential competition into the background, a degree of priority that subsumes anything else under its authority.

The second determines the value its owners place on any of its manifestations, and being the core value elevating it to what some of our languages label 'sacred'.

Not only is identity held important, it is the least likely to be subject to rational considerations;

2. Cooperation: any life form that creates a civilisation must have the capacity to form and favour the herd at whatever level of sophistication. Cooperation needs to be understood as a dynamic applied to the whole (ie, the tribe, society, culture, etc) such that it can be enforced if need be.

Adjacent to its usually positive connotation therefore sits its other side, the will and readiness to move against any usurper. Hence the greater the degree of cooperation overall, the more stringent the measures designed to protect it;

3. Aggression: considered in relation to the whole it serves to protect against anyone and anything perceived to be a threat.

The dynamics of identity and cooperation are combined to ensure a positive outcome for their host. Identity serves as the cause, cooperation as the reason, and together they supply the quality and quantity of defense nurtured by aggression.

The question then, "Should we be scared of aliens" can be answered by assuming there is a civilisation sufficiently evolved to make contact (note: they contact us). This means science and technology exist as a powerful product of the three basics described above, and the intellectual wherewithal to sustain them all.

Sustainability implies understanding, and understanding contains the potential for empathy. Rapacious, colonialising behaviour for its own sake is inherently unsustainable because in a growing system sooner or later the resources needed to control the conquered surpass the benefits.

Yet evolutionary growth also implies the willingness to assert oneself if no other option is left. Both, empathy and assertiveness, go hand in hand but a successful civilisation will still favour assertiveness over empathy in the end.

Should there be an alien race that has achieved the capability to make contact, we can expect them to be curious, firm, but fair overall. Since CDSs incorporate mutually opposing qualities which become apparent should the perceived need arise, we can also expect them to be intrusive, lenient, and capricious.

How that translates into the world view of an alien would be the most urgent task on our side.

Considering the above it would help being most careful when touching on anything having to do with the context of their procreation, respecting their team spirit when dealing with any representative, and honouring their aims. As to the last, we probably won't have much choice anyway.

Since we can expect them to be intelligent, one way to understand the values and priorities of their minds is to observe their kind of humour. To do that we need to have the opportunity, and this in itself is part of the challenge.

It should be an interesting exercise!

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.