The Problem with Honesty

I was having a discussion a few days ago about a great number of subjects and the person I was speaking with brought up a question that initially had me in complete agreement. The question was:

‘Why don’t we accept that the races are different mentally? Most people are willing to accept that there are physical differences, such as black people’s general greater capacity at sports, so why can’t we accept that there are other differences? If we did, then we could do the tests and the experiments to find out who is better suited for what and where people could reach their fullest potential.’

What he said seemed sound. If no differences are found, well then the racists would finally be completely silenced. If some differences were found, however, then we could utilise those differences to do better overall.

When I thought about it some more, though, I realised the one great danger that lurked behind this open honesty and it was this: What if one group turned out to be intellectually weaker than another? What if tests reveal that one group, for example, is intellectually inferior to the others, or not as good at higher concept thinking?

Instead of crushing racism it would enflame it. Racism would explode, blossoming into a bloom of discrimination and violence. The other racial groups would consider themselves superior and especially the stupid and the dull minded (i.e. the truly inferior) would use this as an excuse to abuse people from a perceived inferior group. A gap of only a few points (it wouldn’t have to be big) would become an unbreachable chasm, with parents warning their children to stay away from ‘their lessers’.

No, even though the danger of one group being found out to be weaker than the others is relatively limited, if it were discovered it would open Pandora’s Box. I feel the danger would outweigh any potential gain from the differences we’d discover. Better to leave this sleeping dragon lie.

It isn't really that bad!

I’m not suggesting that everything about life is good. I just reject this premise that everything is going to shite. Yes, there are problems that need solving, yes there are things that need fixing and yes for some people life isn’t easy right now, but that has always been the case.

If life was so perfect at one point or another, why did people change it?

Obviously they believed that there was definite need for improvement then, as we do now.

Right now we’re in the middle of a revolution. Not of people, not of governments, not of ideology, but of economics and science. Revolutions shake up life and make a lot of people feel very uncomfortable and uncertain. They require a massive shift in mindsets and they drag everybody along with them, kicking and screaming, into the new paradigm. But when all is said and done, people always look back at revolutions and say ‘that must have been an amazing time to live’.

If you ask me, they are (will be?) right. This is an absolutely amazing time to live. The problem is that most of the people in the West are only seeing the downside. They can only see the increased insecurity, they risk and the change. You see, for most of them what the rest of the world is now getting they’ve already had for the most part for a long time. The jump doesn’t seem to be that big for them and they can’t believe that it’s causing such a big shake up.

They don’t understand that there are three billion people around this world who are being dragged hundreds of years into the future (our present) in the space of a few decades.

Those people that are pessimistic about this time and say that things are bad are rejecting, out of hand, the immense improvements going on in all these people’s lives. Don’t worry, though. The West has largely rejected most of these people out of hand for centuries, so it isn’t really that surprising that they continue to do so now.

Many of the problems arising right now are outmoded governmental and social models breaking apart as the world rides a tsunami which grows continuously stronger with each new earthquake of scientific and economic advancement.

That’s a good thing, though, as people rarely willingly change. You have to force them into a corner, where they really only have one way out. Then they will change and alter the status quo. Then they will make the sacrifices that future generations will thank them for.

You suggest life is so bad, I believe we’re in a new golden age. We’re just so busy being worried that we’re not taking the time to see the golden city rising all around us.

Is it really that bad?

I think we should define pessimism as an actual intellectual pastime, considering how many supposed educated people engage in it. ‘Things were better before’, ‘I remember when things were good’, ‘when I was a lad’ and so forth and so on. It has actually started to annoy me, off late. Are things really that bad? I don’t believe it, to be honest. Especially considering how one of the main constants of our existence as a species has been the doomsayers. They’ve always been there and they will always remain.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that there is a constant tendency to see the past through rose tinted glasses. The bad things are forgotten, while the good things become even better. Most people already do this in their own life time, oh, I remember when I was a child, life was so much better then. Was it? If you ask any child what they think, they generally can’t wait to grow up! They hate the disrespect, they hate not being listened to and they hate not having control over their lives. What we come to view as their innocence and freedom from responsibility in their lives, they see as a ball and chain.

In the same way we now idolize the fifties, sixties and seventies, yet it was those thirty years that spawned the biggest civic rebellion in the western world, in terms of the hippy movement. The hippy movement wasn’t just a rebellion against the war, it was a rebellion against the very norms and values that were held in such high esteem during those years.

I’m convinced that in a few decades from now we will look back at the 0s and say ‘now that was our golden age, I wish life were like it was then, during those years of unbridled expansion and unlimited possibilities’. People will forget restrictions of freedom, they will forget those that didn’t manage to get dragged along and they will forget the uncertainty everybody is now feeling about the future as we move from one system to another. Just like now we’re starting to forget about the racial riots, the cold war and inherent sexism that were all a part of those decades at the end of the 20^th century.

Yes, we’re in the middle of a new revolution. Yes, most of us have no idea about what we’ll be doing and where we’ll be even ten year from now and yes that is very stressful, but I think suggesting that we’re all doomed might be jumping the gun a bit. We seem to thrive when we think we’re at the brink of destruction. I think it’s only at this perceived brink that we can change our society for the better.

That’s why these doom sayers do it, they’re trying to change society, or maybe it’s better to say that they push society to renew itself. That’s a good thing and something that shouldn’t be discouraged. Nonetheless, you shouldn’t let yourself be fooled, most things now are better than they ever were before and getting better. Let’s keep changing, but lets also be proud of what we’ve already accomplished and be happy with where we are.

The Equality Illusion

We’ve got this thing in our modern day world, where we propose to all believe that all of us are equal. It’s one of the tenets on which a large chunk of the world’s political systems are based. Everybody is equal and therefore deserves an equal say in who rules them; everybody is also, according to western beliefs, equal before the law and, strangest of all, people say that everybody has an equal opportunity to make it big, if they work hard enough.

Yet, if we’re really honest with each other, we all know that we’re not. Men are different from women, Asians are different Africans, those born in developed nations are different from those born in developing and those born to rich parents are different from those born to poor. (for the record, some of these differences are genetic, while some are completely cultural and circumstantial)

Now some of these differences are only superficial, but some of these reasons are quite substantial. Men and women, for example, work in considerably different ways. Though it might not be PC to suggest it, their physiologies are substantially different. Where one gets a shot of testosterone, the other gets a shot of oestrogen, where one has been programmed to ‘go forth and procreate’, the other has been programmed to nurture. Of course, undoubtedly, many of these changes can be de or re programmed, but they are nonetheless there at the beginning.

To act as if these differences aren’t there would be to ignore the rather large elephant in the middle of the room.

Warning bells are probably now ringing in a great many minds. Across mental maps from America to Amsterdam and from Sydney to Singapore the words ‘Here there be dragons’ appear. I realise the perceived danger in what I suggest. If we start accepting some of the smaller differences then how long will it be before prejudice and discrimination rule our world?

The fear is that we A) won’t know where to stop (which is a slippery slope argument) and, for many people far more important, that B) it’s unethical to suggest that some people are just intrinsically ‘better’ than others. Because, of course, when you suggest people are not equal, then for most the automatic next step would be that one must then be better than the other.

The truth is, of course, that ‘better’ and ‘worse’ are concepts that only come about once you’ve first created a scale to measure with. Creating these scales seems, till now, to be a completely human past time, with no necessary grounding in reality.

So what does that mean? Only that that second step need not necessarily be taken and that there might be an alternate route that allows us to accept our differences, without embracing prejudice and discrimination.

I admit freely, that it might be a dangerous route, but I can’t help but think that the route we’ve tried so far hasn’t done a great job of eliminating the ‘isms’, to date. Why not try something new? Because, paradoxical though it seems to us, we’re all different - just like everybody else.

of Passion and Weakness

How ever much I might complain, I love being busy. I whinge and bitch, but in truth I enjoy every second of it. I love the exhaustion, I love the stress, I love the feeling that I’m actually doing something worthwhile.

No, my worst enemy is not doing too much, it is doing too little. The problem, I’m afraid, is that laziness often pushes me towards not doing enough. I’m quick to waste a few hours here, a bit of time there, even when I feel guilty as hell afterwards.

Slowly, ever so slowly, I’m getting over it. The laziness is in retreat. The computer games are a rare indulgence now, and often bore me within a few days. I’ve forced my sleep from the half day phenomenon from university down to about seven and a half, even on weekends, and I’ve thrown out the fantasy and trash fiction in favour of slightly sturdier reading (as you might have noticed). Still, there is a way to go.

I still remain far too reactive. How ever much I might expound the value of the proactive individual, I myself am not always active enough. I often mentally let things sit till just before their ‘expiry’ date (like my taxes), nor do I go out of my way to find work to keep me busy.

For example, I’ve been asked to send some work samples last Wednesday and I haven’t done it yet. True, this is the first moment I’ve actually had time to do anything of the sort, but instead of doing it I’m sitting here typing on my Blog.

I think of all my short comings – including my brusqueness, my pride, my judgemental nature, my inattention to details and my selfishness – my laziness is the one that holds me back the most. So that’s the one that I’m tackling. For those of you reading this, I’d appreciate it if you can give me a kick upside the ass, every so often, just to help me along. That’d be much appreciated.

Deluded

I think it’s about time that we all realise something very important, there is no such thing as pure thought. How ever much the philosophers of old might have praised it to the heavens as the only true tool of finding out how the world around us works, it doesn’t really exist, as such.

Pure thought is an impossibility for us, as we exist right now. The reason is quite simple, though we might think things can actually be separated in our brain, they can’t. Our emotions, desires, passions and thoughts are all interwoven into a tapestry that is us. Though we can sometimes rely more on one region, than another, it is impossible to rely upon one area alone.

You can see this back in the problems brain scanning teams have in defining the boundaries between one zone and another. The reason, in my opinion, is that there aren’t any. Yes, some areas seem to be more dedicated to one thing than another, but they meld into each other, just like almost everywhere else in nature.

Our desire to zone and create borders is just a tool that we use to define the world around us. With it we can react quickly enough to our changing surroundings to survive, without it we would constantly be stuck in a state of indecision, until finally we get eaten by one of those four legged things with fur, claws and big teeth that is generally carnivorous but sometimes does eat plants if there is no other choice.

Since the world was created through an unintelligent process called evolution, nobody ever sat down to categorise different things that were slowly coming about till after we came about.

In the same way our brain has evolved, with different zones being hijacked by different processes and then being taken over by something else, without anything ever being taken away. The flying spaghetti monster lives in our head (read the God Delusion if you’ve got no idea what I’m talking about).

We have to get past this notion that there are clearly defined zones in our head. It’s a former tool that has turned into a modern crutch. As long as we keep thinking that there is such a thing as pure emotion, pure thought and pure instinct we do not truly understand ourselves, or each other. Once we’ve accepted that they’re different dimensions of the same shape, then we can adapt our sciences and our philosophies to take this into account and we get tools better suited to what we are, rather than what we want to be.

Compared to what?

I’m currently reading the book Th!nk, by Michael R. LeGault. I’m not even 26 pages into it and I’m already getting annoyed with him. The premise of the book isn’t bad, it’s a rebuttal of the book ‘Blink’, which I discussed a couple of months ago. He believes that it’s terrible that people are relying too much on their intuition and not enough on their abilities of critical thought.

What really annoys me, though, is his negativity.

To take an example, he rips into modern media and accuses it of being low brow and stupid. As an example he names Reality TV and how it’s destroyed all the good and intelligent shows of the days of yore. Now, I admit freely that Reality TV isn’t the height of intelligent entertainment, but I’ve got to agree with the book ‘Everything Bad is Good for You’, by Steven Johnson, that most people that attack Reality TV are really comparing it to the wrong thing. Reality TV shouldn’t be compared to the serials of yore, no, instead it should be compared to the game shows of yore.

It isn’t serials that have died out at all, instead they are going as strong as ever and getting more and more complicated by the season (Deadwood, Heroes, Lost, Prison Break, etc.) with each one needing you to follow multiple stories and threads, as well as pay close attention, with innocent appearing moments from one episode suddenly coming back to haunt characters eight episodes later. Deep involved storylines certainly knock the socks off any of the older comparable series, such as Star Trek, Miami Vice or 21 Jump Street.

Game shoes, on the other hand, seem to be in drastic decline and that’s a good thing too. Though admittedly there were many that were intelligent enough, shows like ‘The Price is Right’ were certainly not great contributors to the average IQ. And among the Reality shows one can also argue there is an attempt to educate, with such shows as ‘the Amazing Race’ at least occasionally nods to local culture in the challenges that participants take part in.

There is still enough stupid garbage broadcasted worldwide, but people should really rethink this constant need to bash TV and its many relatives. In my opinion there is a real attempt among modern media outlets to not only play to the common denominator. 20 years ago, were there such things as Discovery, CNN, the BBC, National Geographic or the Science Channel? Did movies such as ‘Fahrenheit 911’ and ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ become international hits? I don’t think so.

So, I'll keep reading the book, but so far I'm not very impressed. For a book about critical thought, Mr. LeGault didn’t bother to think very critically.

What they deserve

Of the responses I’ve read to the entire salary debate in Singapore one argument keeps leaping to the forefront. ‘Why should Singaporean civil servants salary rise when so many people live off a salary one thousandth of what the ministers get?’

Let’s start with the simple answer, they deserve it.

Now for the long answer: Singapore is a capitalist society. The capitalist model has turned Singapore from a third world country into a first world country in 50 years. Not only is that an amazing feat, but anybody that would argue that it could have been achieved without capitalism is either dangerously idealistic or an idiot.

There have been few or no parallels in history to this small island model and other societies are now modelling themselves on Singapore, in order to achieve the same sort of growth. The Singaporean government didn’t model itself, however; instead they experimented, using economic concepts in practice that had only been theory up to that time. It worked beautifully.

No, I’m not arguing that they should therefore reap the benefits of what they’ve sown, though I certainly could, no my argument is a little more refined than that (I hope). Though the Singaporean government should certainly be proud of what they’ve achieved, this alone does not give them the right to ask the salaries they are asking.

The reason they are allowed to do that is because if Singapore is capitalist, than that capitalist model should be extended to the government. In other words, people should get paid according to what their services are worth to the population as a whole. A bloke working in a chicken rice stand in the heartlands gets paid $1,200 because he’s running a food stall and people believe his services are worth $1,200. Ministers should be paid $1.2 million because they are running an entire country and people believe (or should believe) that they deserve to be paid that much.

Under capitalism, you get people the most intelligent and educated people to do the most important work. In order to pull these intelligent and educated people away from other sectors you pay them a large amount of money.

The Singaporean government is in direct competition with the private sector. If they don’t pay an adequate salary they won’t attract candidates of an adequate skill level. Those people that they do draw deserve the salaries they are paid.

If you don’t agree with that, then you don’t agree with the entire Singapore model. That’s your choice, of course, but in that case you shouldn’t be attacking the Ministers for their salaries, but instead be attacking the model as a whole. You should try to turn Singapore socialist or, better yet, Marxist. Only then will people draw more average salaries.

Of course, if you do that there’s a good chance those salaries will be a great deal lower than they are now.

Pay them what they deserve, or you'll get what you deserve, namely a bad government.

of Bonuses and GDP

In the Singapore Government's continuing arguments about the salaries of civil servants the discussions have turned to a new system for bonuses. The suggested (implemented?) system for bonuses for civil servants is linked to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If the country’s GDP grows by more than 2% the civil servants get a several month bonus, the number of months is dependant on the amount the country’s GDP growth is above 2%. In this way, the argument goes, the government will be driven to make the country not just by some underlying moralistic urge, but also by a financial urge.

It’s not a bad idea, linking governmental officer’s pay to the country’s performance as a whole. The big question I have, just like many of the minsters in parliament, is whether it’s really a good idea to use GDP. Why are we so hung up on GDP? In most economic reviews and magazines they tout the GDP growth of countries and we all accept it blindly, but what is GDP really and is it really a good measure of how well we’re doing?

I mean, I know that GDP is the total value of goods and services produced by a nation and that it’s considered a very good measurement of how well the economy is doing. That’s not what I’m talking about, what I’m talking about is how valuable is it really to measure how much a country produces? Wouldn’t it be better to measure something else, like the average wages of the people in the economy, or the average happiness of individuals in that economy? Isn’t that a better measurement than how much extra the factories can produce?

For example, if a company automates its entire production line and becomes 20% more effective, while laying off half its staff, GDP goes up and the economy is supposedly better off, but the same can’t be said for those workers who’ve been laid off. No, I’m not touting protectionist or socialist principles here (I’m all for making production more efficient), what I’m questioning is this blind following of quantitative economic growth.

If civil servant’s find their salaries linked to GDP then they will obviously try their best to jack up GDP. In many ways this will be a good thing, but it will also have the effect that those same people will concentrate less on other things, such as social cohesion, wellbeing and satisfaction. For example, if a health minister has to choose between pumping money into researching drugs that boost productivity, or drugs that increase longevity, they will probably chose productivity. After all, this will boost GDP, while longer living people will probably have an adverse effect on the economy, as they will probably still retire around the same time.

What’s more, short term GDP boosting will be encouraged (a bonus this year is better than one next year) while long term GDP growth won’t be very interesting (as the civil servant might not even be working for the government then anymore). This will shift the focus in the wrong direction, away from the long term, towards the short term. We can see what effect that has in many countries around the world already (where ministers are afraid of getting voted out of office) and it’s not a good thing.

No I think this needs to be rethought. Normally I agree with the economic policies of the Singapore Government, but not today.

The Free Will Illusion 2: Responsibility

On the one hand you have God. God knows everything and is able to do everything. That is the point of omnipotence and omniscience. God created everything, including us, and then, the stories say, gave us free will. Now, there is a paradox in that. The concept of Free Will demands that we have the ability to make our own choices, but that’s impossible because God already knows exactly what those choices are going to be. What is more, he could have changed any of them simply by having things develop slightly differently right from the beginning. The moment he creates the initial starting conditions he knows exactly how everything will end, thereby undermining and concept of Free Will. This is called determinism and, within our logic system as it exists right now, is very difficult to refute.

On the other hand we have cold hard science, which won’t accept the existence of the soul unless it is proven. According to our current scientific models we are a series of chemical reactions and electronic impulses, which move and act according to what chemicals are predominant and which nerve endings are firing. Science also teaches us that any process, if all the variables are known, can be predicted. This means that according to science everything has also been predetermined, even if it remains beyond our ability to know what that path will be.

So, if you’re honest about it, both science and monotheistic religions do not accept the existence of Free Will. So what does that mean for us? The biggest problem with the absence of Free Will is that it means there is no longer any responsibility. It becomes very easy for anybody to say ‘yeah, but I didn’t have a choice, did I? Everything has already been decided.’

That’s a real pickle, because our entire law system as it exists right now is based on the principle of responsibility. If somebody isn’t responsible for his actions, well then they can’t be punished for them either. This is what the insanity defense is based on, as well as the reason that information acquired under coercion is not admissible in court (torture takes away choice from the tortured).

For the last couple of days I’ve been trying to figure out what to make of this. There is some vague notion running around in my head, at this point, about the Illusion of Free Will (i.e. the idea that we are incapable of predicting somebody’s choice, therefore they can be considered to have Free Will even when they don’t) being just as useful as actual Free Will (especially since it’s impossible for us to tell the difference), but the pieces haven’t quite clicked together yet. It still feels that if you take away Free Will then you take away responsibility.

Does anybody know any way out of this predicament?

Singapore Pays

I just heard on the BBC that there is a serious debate here in Singapore right now about a suggested hike of the salaries of senior civil servants, who are already some of the best paid civil servants in the world. The wage increase would be 25%, from 800k to one million dollars, though I’m not sure if that’s American or Singaporean.

Even if we ignore for the moment the fact that I’m obviously not keeping a very good eye on local news - seeing as I had to hear this bounced back from England - this still remains an interesting story. Apparently it has caused quite an uproar among Singaporeans, something that is quite out of the ordinary, in itself (though admittedly Singaporeans have become more outspoken over the last few years).

They feel that this is too much of a good thing and that the senior civil servants are taking advantage of the situation. Some complained that civil servants shouldn’t do it for the money, but for a desire to do good for the community, others felt that there was no correlation between salaries and corruption, the supposed reason for the hike.

Both admirable arguments I thought. Let’s look at the second one first. At lower levels the argument doesn’t hold true whatsoever of course, as even the best people will become corrupt if the only other choice is watching their families starve. I don’t think that was what the person bringing that argument forward meant, however, I think they were talking up at the higher levels. There the argument probably has more merit, as people quickly feel that they deserve what they are getting, if not more.

On the other hand, Singapore is a very clean city with a very low rate of corruption. That is quite admirable in Asia, where corruption is rampant. Part of the reason that this is the case is that they pay their civil servants well. There is less reason for these people to take bribes when they’ve already got a good income.

The first argument is, in my opinion, just fairy tale talk. Yes, in a perfect world the best people sacrifice themselves willingly for the good of everybody else, nobody spits on the street and we give half our meal to those less fortunate than ourselves willingly. This isn’t a perfect world though. The only way you get the best people is by paying them the best salary. This is also true for government.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Government is the most important ‘company’ in a country and its leaders should therefore be paid accordingly. It’s ridiculous that middle managers often earn more than country presidents. The best and brightest, instead of dedicating themselves to their countries, instead dedicate themselves to helping some company make billions.

I’m all for the moral argument. People should dedicate themselves to doing good and helping their fellow man, I just happen to believe that morality can go hand in hand with a good paycheck.

The Free Will Conundrum

The more I read the less place there seems to be left over for Free Will. A couple of months ago (in December or January, if I remember correctly) The Economist ran a story about neuroscience and the impact of recent advances in neuroscience on law, philosophy and society as a whole.

One of the stories they talked about was of a very ordinary man who suddenly started displaying paedophilic tendencies. He was caught with a large amount of kiddie porn on his computer and was then prosecuted. While this was going on he went to the hospital and had a brain scan done. A large tumour was found in his head. When they cut it away, the paedophilic tendencies suddenly disappeared. Later, when he noticed that they were returning, they scanned again and, lo and behold, the tumour was growing again. He wasn’t prosecuted for his behaviour, seeing as he had no control over his actions.

Not a bad story, right? Well, not if you’re a judge who strongly believes that people should be held responsible for their actions, or a philosopher who strongly believes in the precepts of free will. When tumours can influence how we behave, then what does that mean for our law system? After all, our entire law model is built on the idea that a person is in control of his or her actions, that’s why we have the insanity defence; if people are insane and not in control of their actions, they are not considered criminals but instead as suffering from an illness.

Other stories talk about a family that has a genetic propensity for violence (making it very hard to hold them responsible for their behaviour), as well as numerous studies that are slowly revealing which substances in the brain are responsible for what types of behaviour (including substances which block out common sense in times of extreme excitement). We already have some legal and medical recourse for these things, such as ‘crimes of passion’ arguments, but are they really enough?

And what about Free Will itself? As we understand the brain more and more, what room will be left for our ability to choose? This becomes even more difficult when you no longer believe in the existence of a soul (like me), though I think I prefer my position to the unenviable one of later on finding a new place for the soul to reside, if – when we’ve fully mapped the brain – no connection is found between the brain and ‘something else’.

The problem is that when you see the brain as purely chemical, it becomes very hard to find any process for making choice. You see, all chemical processes can in theory be predicted. Yes, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does eventually lead us down a street where we can no longer predict what is going to happen, but simply because we are incapable of predicting it doesn’t mean it isn’t still predictable.

Choice isn’t logical. Choice means that even when a set of circumstances is exactly the same (in every single way) twice over, a different outcome might still happen. That’s the principle of free will. Chemicals don’t work that way, if you have exactly the same circumstances a billion times over, you will get the exact same result a billion times over (yes, we can’t do it; but again, just because we can’t do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done).

Even with the utmost complexity of our brain, the underlying chemical reactions can in theory still be predicted and built upon to show us how the complex decision making processes in our brain will work. Not being able to make those predictions doesn’t mean we have Free Will, it just means we’ve got the Illusion of Free Will.

I really wonder if we have choice, or just the illusion of choice, much like very advanced computer AIs in computer games that seem to react intelligently, but in truth are just following a very complex program. And no, an extremely complex program that mimics free will in every way is still not the same, conceptually, as Free Will itself.

Though admittedly we might never be able to tell the difference.

The Value of Capitalism

There is an interesting trend taking place in many modern books (or maybe it’s been there all along, but I just haven’t noticed) about what is really wrong with the capitalist model and it goes a little something like this: capitalism is efficient, but it isn’t very compassionate.

I’ve come to realise that I’ve started falling into a trap. I’ve let the capitalist model prove its value mainly on the basis of capitalist values. I’ve argued that capitalism is the best because it brings the greatest economic gains, causes the greatest growth in personal wealth over the entire population and leads the largest productivity gains. Other systems, in comparison, haven’t done very favourably.

What I’ve come to believe is that economic growth, personal wealth and high productivity shouldn’t be goals in themselves. It’s a bit like that age old one about some people making money just for the sake of making money, with the original reasons for making money having long since fallen by the wayside.

I’m afraid many of us have fallen into the same trap with capitalism. When we started capitalism was all about generating a way out of absolute poverty towards some imagined better state. It was thought for a very long time that as wealth would increase, so would happiness. It has become clear, however, that this isn’t actually what is happening. Beyond that most basic jump from not being able to survive without help to getting by happiness doesn’t actually increase at all.

For the last fifty years in Japan they’ve been measuring the happiness of the population, as they went from an economy that had been smashed into little bits by the war to the powerhouse that they are today and though individual (and nation wide) wealth increased dramatically, happiness didn’t shift even a millimetre on any of the scales. Further studies have shown that those communities that are the happiest in the world are actually often ones that are the poorest.

Now, I’m not sure whether it is individual wealth, individual happiness, or something else entirely that we should be pursuing, but I do feel that it might be a good idea to explore the value of capitalism more closely, to make sure that we’re on the right path. This doesn’t mean I’m rejecting capitalism, mind you, it just means I’ll be taking a closer look at the tenets that underlie it.

If I seriously question the existence of God, then I should certainly do the same with things that are further down the scale, don’t you agree?

The Nature - Nurture Argument

I’ve almost finished the book ‘Social Intelligence’ by Daniel Goleman. It took me a bleedin’ long time, actually. I’ve been hammering (shying?) away at it pretty much ever since I posted about the book Blink, on February 15^th. For the record, it didn’t take that long because the book isn’t good, it is. I was just occupied with other things.

Social Intelligence is a quite meaty book about a great deal of neurological research into our social side. It discusses a plethora of different social interactions, starting from the emotional/ intellectual divide and then diving into child rearing, racism, health care and many other areas.

I’m sure it will come up frequently enough in the next couple of weeks in my posts.

What I want to talk about today is an interesting section where Goleman discusses the nature – nurture argument. For those people unfamiliar with it, the nature – nurture argument is basically about what has shaped us, our genes or our surroundings (eg. our parents). Some people believe that almost everything is pre-decided by our genes, while others argue that a person is largely free to be shaped by his upbringing.

In Social Intelligence Goleman says that it’s actually a third option, that hadn’t really been considered by the general public, namely that genes predict the path our lives will take, but our surroundings influence which genes will be active and which will be dormant.

When we interact with each other we secrete huge amounts of substances, from serotonin when we’re happy, to testosterone when we’re angry and cortisol when we’re stressed or afraid. Each of these has a huge impact on which genes are active and how our body develops. So our genes, therefore, influence our surroundings (by influencing us) and our surroundings in turn influence us. Arguing about which is more important and more significant is like arguing whether hardware or software is the most important part of a computer.

With this argument sorted out we can now move onto more important things, like how to use both sides of this argument to make life better for all of us.

"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."

-John Morley

More quotes

Does capitalism need democracy?

For the longest time it was believed that capitalism and democracy went hand in hand, but now the Chinese and the Vietnamese have thrown a wrench into the works and shown that our belief might be nothing more than an assumption. On what do we base our assumption that one needs the other?

Political scientists argue that capitalism needs the strong institutes that are inherent in a democratic model. Without a good and independent rule of law, for instance, it is very hard to protect yourself from cheating and theft. When you can’t protect your interest from illegal activities, the argument goes, you can’t have trust and when you can’t have trust capitalism doesn’t work. After all, all capitalist interactions are based on ‘contracts’.

Take money and property, for instance. Money is a contract with everybody else that your work has some sort of numerical value, which other people will then accept in exchange for their own work. Money is no longer even weighed against anything, relying instead on the assumption that the government will only print a finite amount of it, with its finite nature making it valuable. In other words, money only works because we trust that it does.

Property, on the other hand, makes the basic assumption that something can actually be owned solely by one individual and that others will respect that ownership. If we doubted each other and the government’s will and ability to enforce that ownership, then we certainly wouldn’t want to buy property and without property there really can’t be any large scale productivity (e.g. no factories.) Again, that is a trust principle.

So I don’t have a problem with trust being essential for capitalism, what I have trouble with is the implicit assumption that democracy is the only system that can provide these institutes. Where does that assumption come from? Why can’t a dictatorship provide a good rule of law? Yes, if he is an absolute ruler and doesn’t allow any independent institute to exist outside of his own rule, then it will be extremely difficult to build up the necessary levels of trust, but why can’t there be a limited dictatorship, where a court of law is charged with the task of defending capitalism as well as the dictatorship?

In fact, it seems to me that if you want to create a true capitalist model it might even be better not to be democratic, as the People are often anti-capitalist, but some other sort of government that springs forth from the capitalist model (maybe a bidding system for roles in government, with these positions and the governmental model protected by independent institutes?)

I’m not saying that that is a desirable governmental model, mind you, I’m just saying that the implicit assumption that has been made that for capitalism we need democracy needs to be rethought. Capitalism can exist without democracy and in all likelihood democracy can exist without capitalism as well. Whether that is desirable is a different question, entirely.

To Pyrrhus

I had to think long and hard about whether I should respond to the comment that Pyrrhus left on my blog a few days ago. I was left wondering if it would actually serve any purpose. I still felt I owed it to him, though, so for what it's worth here I go.

First off, you can't kill all the terrorists. I'm sure the army has tried everything in its power to kill them, but so far it hasn't been very effective. By the last count Al Quada was actually recovering a great deal of its strength, something that greatly worried the American intelligence services (as well as everybody else, of course).

I've tried explaining this before, but it seems to be something that needs re-explaining. There are not a fixed number of terrorists. Their numbers grow and shrink, depending on what's happening in world politics and other areas. A botched military operation that is meant to kill terrorists will instead create more as formerly innocent civilians rise up in revenge for being wronged. The feeling that their way of life is being threatened by outside forces (such as, for example, the perceived invasion of one of their countries and a 'war' on their religion) will galvanize thousands, if not millions, and make them become freedom fighters and terrorists.

In order to make it easier to understand, imagine if a state in the US was invaded by some superior power (aliens?) millions of Americans would flood into the army and, if the army was shattered, into freedom fighter cells, flooding from all over the country to help fellow Americans who are in trouble. Some would simply fight with guns and and bullets, others would try politics and a limited few true extremists might resort to extreme forms of violence, be it biological warfare, sabotage or yes, terrorism. The more you radicalise a population, the more moderates will slowly be pushed into this extremist group.

The invasion of Iraq served exactly that purpose in the Muslim world. It doesn't matter whether the war was justified (I still don't believe it was), what matters is whether they see it as justified. Obviously, they don't.

Iraq has become a banner for extremists and a training ground for new recruits. Once the war is over many of those youths might lay down there arms, but a sizable minority, having tasted blood, will probably want to strike out at the west elsewhere. These people will be many times more dangerous then they would have been as raw recruits (forgetting, for the moment, that most of them might well never have been recruited).

Another mistake you make is assume that all the terrorists are being drawn into Iraq. Some are, no doubt, but a sizable group has no means to go to, or true affinity with Iraq and are forced to, or would rather fight the war elsewhere. They see the invasion of Iraq as just another example of the west trying to destroy their way of life. As a result they will lash out at it in their own country, or somewhere where they see the west as weak and vulnerable.

They do not succeed often, but what they do succeed in doing is making our lives less free. I feel that that is a terrible price to pay. Here you also make a fallacy, suggesting that if my dad is allowed to take his pen on the plane (or rather, if we're allowed to bring fluids aboard) then that will mean we have to wrestle terrorists to the ground. Is that really true? The government says it is, but they might be more concerned with not losing votes (which would happen if a plane was detonated in the sky) and appearing to be tough on terrorism (which might win them votes) than with the actual probability of a fluid bomb being successful. We don't know the chances of a plane being blown up by a liquid bomb, they didn't tell us. The chance might be incredibly low, but they might not want to run that incredibly low risk because it might cost them their power.

As for your profiling, It is already happening. So many of my Muslim and dark skinned non-Muslim friends have been harassed by custom officials and others, even though they are innocent. Do you know what that leads to? Resentment and dislike. Many of them, who felt a great deal of sympathy for the US after 911, now have a serious dislike for all things American. They feel they are the target or discrimination and racism and they respond in the same way.

I think back at all the good will the rest of the world felt towards the US had after 911 and then I think about how it was squandered by misguided policies and reality ignoring ideas and it really sucks the life out of me. It is such a shame. It could have been used to unify and instead it led to such division and strife.

Of course, none of this will probably convince you a great deal, so let me finish with this: You should try coming out here for a while, so that you can make up your own mind, rather than getting it all second hand from commentators and critics at home. The world outside America (and Europe) is a great deal different than you think.

What we do

My parents are travelling to Europe tonight and my dad was worried he couldn’t take his pen. ‘Ink is a fluid’ he pointed out. Now, it doesn’t really matter whether he was allowed to take his pen (he was), what gets me is that people have to actually consider whether they’re allowed to take writing utensils with them. Where will it end? What if some terrorist manages to develop exploding cloth, do we then all have to travel naked?

Why are governments allowing terrorists to have such an impact on the world? Doesn’t anybody at the top ever wonder how a handful of people can so drastically influence and inconvenience millions? The reason those terrorists are so effective is because people care far too much about them.

Terrorists don’t even have to blow anything up anymore. They just have to threaten to blow something up and people go scurrying around making life difficult for each other.

Like the tantrum throwing toddler the terrorists throws a fit and the people around him react and, again like the tantrum throwing toddler, when the terrorists sees that it’s working his tantrums become bigger and more frequent. What is more, others around him go ‘hey, that works!’ and hey presto the kinder garden teach is found overdosed on sleeping pills with his last words written across the wall in coloured crayons ‘the little shits wouldn’t shut up’.

Terrorists are just like franchises and, just like other franchises, if they don’t get what they want they won’t open up more shops. McDonalds wouldn’t be found all around the world if people didn’t eat the bloody burgers, Starbucks wouldn’t be on every corner if people didn’t drink their over priced coffee and terrorists wouldn’t be blowing themselves up everywhere if they didn’t believe they were terrorising the shit out of everybody.

So what do we do?

We stop being so scared and we stop giving them so much attention. We hope that as many attacks as possible are stopped and when the attacks do happen we don’t go hysterical. We show them that we can’t be intimidated and that we won’t sacrifice our freedoms or way of life for their warped ideologies. We persevere and show them we’re tougher than they give us credit for. We accept that one day we all run out of time and, whether it’s in a bed with cancer, or in an airplane with a bomb, we realise that it’s not really that moment that matters, but all the moments that came before. I refuse to let them ruin those moments, what about you?

Courtship

They circle each other, he strutting and showing his impressive plumage, his eyes, strong broad chest and his Rolex, while she plays the coy game, giving him just enough rope to hang himself, hiding behind her locks of hair, while still showing him enough signals to keep him interested, flashing him a wrist, for instance, as she smokes her cigarette.

Their squeaks and warbles fill the air, barely audible over the tones of the synthesized sounds that give them a shield of misunderstanding and miscomprehension to hide behind, in case either of them is only physically interesting.

The sounds are just cover anyway, while the courtship dance takes place. How ever much they might think otherwise, it often doesn’t really matter what is said, or whose names are remembered. It is more about the steps in their intuitive chess game, played on the board of their bodies, with its set moves and rules, unwritten but still set in stone.

And I’m so tired of it, these games, these puzzles, these tests. Why does it always have to be the same game? Why does it always have to be the same steps? Why can’t it just be different for once?

It must be possible to sidestep the normal sequence of events and – through one action, one question or one thought – send that encounter spinning in a completely new direction, where it might be out of control, but also more intriguing.

It must he possible to do it all differently. There must be a way to be of greater value to each other. I pray that I find it, because otherwise I must either stick to the steps of the courtship dance, or not dance all together. I actually do like dancing, but I just prefer my own tune.

The Waiting Game

I seem to be spending my life waiting for something. Waiting to leave Singapore, waiting to earn enough money so that I can actually leave, waiting for somebody to realise my value and offer me something better, waiting for people to e-mail or sms me back, waiting for the bell to ring so that I can get out of class, waiting for eight thirty so that I can go home, waiting for my break, waiting, waiting, waiting.

I can’t imagine that it’s the same for everybody. I believe that there are going to be plenty of people out there who aren’t waiting for anything and, instead, would like the world to wait and let them catch up.

Is it my fault that I’m spending so much time waiting? Am I doing something wrong? Should I be approaching life differently? It doesn’t feel right to me. It feels like when I’m waiting for something I’m really missing an opportunity to do something else, which makes me feel guilty.

I can tell you, it’s no fun feeling guilty and not quite knowing why. On the other hand, they do say ‘when you feel guilty, you have nothing to worry about; it’s when you stop feeling guilty that you should start worrying’.

Maybe the guilt has a purpose and, while we're at it, maybe the waiting does too.

A life less ordinary

Some recent events have made me seriously question myself. A few years ago I used to have quite a few friends. People would contact us (my girlfriend and me) regularly and we would always be invited out to parties, occasions and events.

Slowly that grew less, though, with less and less people inviting us places. When I broke up with my girlfriend a few months ago, the occasional message from those old friends that used to come no longer did, though according to her plenty of our old friends are still contacting her, even if not always with the best intentions.

I can’t blame them. At least they were polite enough to wait till our relationship was over, before they started pursuing her. What does hurt, however, is the feeling that maybe these people never really saw me as their friend. I can’t help but wonder if, really, they were just interested in my girlfriend and I was just the unfortunate hanger on, an obstacle that had to be out waited.

Was I just ‘the boyfriend’ and nothing more?

Until recently I used to think I had a way with people. I believed I was likeable and that people wanted to be around me. Don’t get me wrong, I have good friends, but not quite as many as I would expect if I was as good with people as I believed I was.

Here in Singapore I think I have only three good friends and maybe a handful of good acquaintances that I have regular contact with. For the rest I am an unknown and my presence would not be terribly missed.

I guess I am just not as memorable as I would like, or if I am, then I certainly didn’t use to be. Of course, ultimately the only thing for it is to accept it, or to change it. I just hope I can change it, because the thought of just being ordinary in other people’s eyes is unbearable.

The Discriminating Citizen

I don’t think as things stand right now that we’ll ever rid ourselves as a species of discrimination. Why? Because the more I read, the more and more convinced I become that discrimination is genetic. It has been written into our very code, along with our drive for procreation and our fight or flight instinct. It is a remnant from our distant past that still very much haunts us today.

‘I’m not racist’ some of you are probably saying right now and though that is probably disputable (we try not to be racist, but I think it is very difficult to not be racist at all) it’s beside the point. After all, some of us choose not to procreate and other choose not to fight or run, but as a whole species the greater majority still does. We’re not just racist as individuals; we’re racist as a species. If you don’t believe that, then just look at how badly we treat the other species on this mud ball.

It’s natural (read: nature has installed it in us) to be afraid of the unfamiliar. After all, in the tooth and claw world the unfamiliar is generally dangerous and very likely competing for the same resources as we are. What is more, the unfamiliar generally shares a great deal less genetic code with us than the familiar does.

Now, of course, we seem to have partially evolved past our genes (look into meme theory if you’re interested in that). Because of that we’ve become aware of our discrimination and it has become possible for some of us to choose to ignore or reframe our instincts, but that is certainly not the same as eliminating the problem. Discrimination is still our initial reaction and often it is so subtle that we hardly even notice ourselves doing it.

For example, in a job interview a person of your own race walks in and you greet them warmly and, as normally happens when you greet somebody warmly, he responds warmly. Immediately a positive rapport is established between you and that makes you think better of that individual. Then a person of a different race comes in, one you’ve had little contact with. You try to behave the same, but because of your innate discrimination you start out just a little less warmly. The other person notices this slight hesitation and, though he might not ascribe it to racism, responds at the same level. The interview naturally doesn’t go quite as well. All things being equal, it would be natural for you to choose the first person, all the while convinced that no discrimination took place.

What can we do about it? Well as individuals, being aware of it helps a great deal, as we can then consider it in our choices and actions. As a race? It would be nice to think that this type of discrimination might one day evolve out of us and it well might, but unfortunately evolution is a very slow process and our lives will have finished ten times over before that happens. We might want to think of something slightly faster than that.

"Insanity:

doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-Einstein

Somehow I've been thinking a great deal about this quote and it has rung true. It's left me to wonder, am I doing the same thing over and over again? Am I stuck in a cycle of repetition, believing that somehow it will all change for me? Am I actually evolving and improving, or am I just repeating the same general themes in my life?

Somebody else, I don't know who anymore, said that life will continue to throw the same lesson at you until you've learned it. That's played through my head as well, am I learning the lessons from life that I should? I would like to think so, but 'would like' is an interesting grammatical construction, in that it suggests that it might well not be so.

On the other hand, i feel that the only way that you can continue learning is through self doubt. The moment you believe that you have everything by the right end, you stop looking for new ends to try out. So, the question becomes, is this all part of my learning process, or am I stuck in an unproductive cycle that appears progressive but is really just repetitive?

Stress free? No thanks!

It’s kind of funny, how people talk about stress. They talk about how terrible it is and how wonderful it would be if their lives were stress free. If their lives were stress free, they say, they would live longer as well as live easier, they would be able to relax and not worry and they would be able to do the things they wanted to.

And they would be right to say all of those things, but I guarantee you one thing, they’d also be bored to tears.

Stress is an essential part of our lives and it is actually, in many ways, a good thing. It helps us focus, helps us concentrate and helps us perform. We feel slight levels of stress every time we are asked to perform at work, at home, or even during games and let’s be honest about it, we enjoy it!

Stress accompanies challenge and we all need to be challenged. If we didn’t we wouldn’t like game shows, competitions, or seek career advancement. If there was no longer any challenge in our lives, I think many of us would go insane from boredom. I know I would.

Of course, too much stress is a bad thing, but that isn’t anything new. We all know that moderation is the key (though it seems we all enjoy excess). Too much sex, chocolate, water or food will shorten our live spans drastically and it’s the same with too much stress.

We’ve turned stress into the modern boogey man, when in truth it has always been a useful tool. I, for one, won’t be part of that anymore and welcome stress, and the accompanying excitement, into my life. After all, without stress life might be long, but it won’t be worth living.

What is missing

Forgive me for flogging a dead horse, but my trip to Vietnam has made it even clearer to me what it is that Is missing in Singapore. It is such a shame, too. Singapore is such an amazing place in so many ways. The Singaporeans have done a fantastic job of making the island livable, safe and secure. Almost everything is here; including convenience, safety, opportunity, technology, predictability, etc. The one thing that is missing, however, is excitement.

The funny thing is I think the government is aware of it. They try in so many ways to bring excitement here. They are building the integrated resorts, they are trying to develop street culture, they are upgrading areas to make them more livable and interesting (according to them, anyway), but despite all they do they can’t seem to bring excitement to the island.

‘Yes, but what is excitement?’ I hear you ask. That’s a good question and a hard one, at that. That’s probably why it has been so hard for Singapore to capture it. I’m not sure I can fully explain it either, but what I can say is this: excitement needs risk. Without risk, or at least perceived risk, there is no excitement.

That’s why rollercoaster rides and horror movies are exciting. We perceive danger and it speeds up our heart rates, sharpens our senses and generally makes us feel more alive. This was a daily phenomenon when we were still living in the bush, clubbing animals (including each other) over the head, but it is rare now and so we search for it.

The Singapore government doesn’t like risk, it thinks it is undesirable. Like the ultimate nanny state, the Singapore government makes certain that its citizens’ lives are as risk free as possible. This is great if you want to live a long life, raise your children, not worry about things and are generally content with the status quo (which seems to be the majority of humanity), but if you’re one of those people who needs excitement born out of real risk, well then chances are Singapore isn’t the right place for you.

That would be fine, if it weren’t that those people that need that risk are ultimately essential for a country. Risk takers are those people who make things happen and create new opportunities for a country. It’s the entrepreneurs, the artists, the investors, the creatives, the activists and, yes, the criminals that need that excitement and when it isn’t there, they will leave.

Don’t get me wrong, they won’t leave immediately. They will stay for a time, try to make their money and get their kicks, but the majority just won’t stay for ever. They will go elsewhere, where they feel more at home. Thus a society is created where the risk takers are always transitional and moving on. Risk takers that come in leave, while people that born here are less prone to take risk as a whole.

A country can’t be run on nine to fivers alone. People are needed who are willing to risk to get what they want and as long as there is no excitement, those people won’t stay.