Saturday, April 30, 2011

On Privacy

One of the most contentious issues today is that of privacy which is considered to be a universal right. In essence, privacy is the right to be undisturbed in one's private life. Translated this means that a person should be free to do whatever they like in their private capacities as long as they are not breaking any laws and/or directly and to the maximum extent possible indirectly not causing harm to anyone else.

The concept of privacy differs between culture. The particular concept of privacy highlighted above springs from a Western concept of the uniqueness and importance of the individual. The idea of the family is restricted to one's immediate family: parents and siblings. There is no larger concept of the family. Even in this context, there is an emphasis on the individual and his or her right to choose any course of action. Thus parents can help a child but have no right to dictate the latter's decisions. The bonds of the family get looser with time and for many if not most individuals they eventually disappear. Thus the phenomenon of old people's homes in which some children visit (regularly or not) while others do not do so. This particular emphasis on privacy and the resultant concept of individualism is also responsible atleast partially for the periodic stories that emerge of old people dying alone in their apartments or homes and no one realizing it sometimes for several years.

Paradoxically, the Western emphasis on the individual and his or her right to privacy results in a strong sense of community. Humans are social animals and will always seek to become part of a large group. Since the larger family plays little role in the lives of individuals, the community in which they live in takes on that role: community in this context includes both neighbors and friends. This sense of community also translates into a strong identification with the nation which in this context can be regarded as a community of communities living within a particular geographic boundary.

Other societies have a different concept of the role of the individual. Asian societies place a far greater importance on family. Here the individual is not so important but the larger family is. In this context, family goes beyond parents and siblings and includes aunts, uncles, cousins and sundry other relatives. There is no right to privacy as the concept is understood in the West in such societies. Other individuals can and do interject themselves in important personal decisions. Thus for example, in South Asian societies when a marriage is to be considered, it is not just a matter between the two individuals concerned. The larger families of both parties get involved and start giving their input which cannot be discounted. This particular concept of the role and rights of the individual generally translates into a strong sense of family and clan but not into a strong sense of community. So we see that the particular Western concern about privacy does not hold much resonance in other parts of the world.

Western societies have considered their systems and concepts to be superior to those of other societies. This view was articulated and bolstered in the 18th and 19th centuries when Western rule and influence extended over the globe. This view is held with strong conviction in the West till today.

Which conception is better? Both have their strong and weak points. The Western concept of the individual and their rights allow for a high degree of personal experimentation. This has also necessitated a high tolerance for failure. Part of the dynamism of Western societies comes from this ability to experiment without strongly negative social repercussions on the individual. On the other hand, family bonds are weaker and continue to decline over time. Individuals are thus deprived of the experience and counsel of their elders and so similar types of mistakes are made by successive generations. Another consequence is felt in old age when many individuals find themselves largely abandoned at a stage in their lives when their ability to look after themselves is severely diminished.

The Eastern emphasis on the family means that individuals benefit from the experience and counsel of older generations. They can thus obtain valuable help and guidance in their personal decision making and other aspects of their lives such as rearing children. In return, individuals tend to be cared for by their families in old age. However, there is a much lower degree of personal experimentation and a vastly lower tolerance for failure. Important issues like career or marriage are not decided by the individual alone but via a consensus within the larger family structure.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, April 29, 2011

Arrogance

Arrogance is a fascinating emotion. No body likes it and yet all of us are guilty of it to some degree. What is interesting about this emotion are the reasons people are arrogant about. Almost inevitably, the main cause of arrogance for any one has nothing to do with any personal achievement. Indeed people who have actually achieved something are usually not arrogant. Root causes of arrogance largely stem from family lineage or family wealth or looks. All of these things are essentially luck of the genetic lottery. Someone born to a rich family could just as easily have been born on the other end of the social spectrum. If you are blessed with good looks, you personally had nothing to do with it. So in cases of obvious arrogance, there is no firm foundation for this emotion. The reason for which a person is arrogant is completely outside that person's control.

There is also a form of arrogance that emerges in the work place. The most common reasons for this arrogance stem from one's vast network of connections or from one's qualifications vis-a-vis co-workers or from too rapid promotions or from a hugely inflated sense of self worth: a feeling that you are God's gift to the company. This is also an overt form of arrogance. Such persons are generally extremely unpleasant to work with and morale inevitably suffers with a consequence of a higher turnover. Such persons also tend to get shunned and attempts are made to block them off into a silo.

There is a much more subtle form of arrogance than these though. Almost all of us suffer from this form regardless of how we view ourselves. The basic definition of arrogance is an offensive display of superiority or self importance or overbearing pride. The vast majority of people consider themselves superior in some respect to others. Consider the behavior of drivers on the road. At some point, most of us have accelerated just enough to prevent somebody from overtaking us. A primary feeling in such cases is why should this driver get ahead of me. Does he think himself better than me? This is an example of arrogance. Or consider this: you are at a traffic light (or going about in the market) and a beggar approaches. How do you feel? Again arrogance. This form is extremely difficult, almost impossible to control. It also betrays us in our decision making. All too often we decide not to pursue a course of action because it is "beneath" us even if said course would have been beneficial either financially or otherwise. As soon as we think like this, we exhibit a subtle form of arrogance.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Copyrights and Innovation - III

There is a tension between public interest and private interest as far as copyrights are concerned. When creative works are widely, commonly and freely available, the cultural space of a society expands. It leaves behind a richer legacy for future generations. Existing creators often use the work of previous generations. For example a book like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies takes and extends the original work in an entirely new way. Such a book would simply not be possible if the original was still strongly protected by copyrights. The fantasy elements in the Harry Potter series were first articulated and defined in earlier works. This series takes those elements and mixes them in entirely new ways. As a result we have a new set of books that has not only delighted old and young alike but also resulted in spin offs like movies, fan fiction, parodies etc. Our cultural space has been expanded and enriched and the stage has been set for possible future creations.

Copyrights however act as a toll gate in this process. They do not allow the free mixing of ideas that results in important new works. Instead they force one vision onto society. Interesting combinations are not allowed to occur. Furthermore, only approved creators are allowed through the toll gate and only after the payment of proper entry fee. Again the cultural expansion that occurs from the free mixing of ideas is stymied.

As mentioned previously, copyright issues also affect economic development. However they do more than that. They also affect scientific development. In order to be taken seriously, research papers need to be published in a peer reviewed journal. While this process raises its own set of issues, my concern here is with the resultant effects of copyrights. Scientific journals are the academic equivalent of gatekeepers in the commercial world. By locking up knowledge of new developments, they actually hamper advances in science. Unless they can pay the fees demanded, other scientists - specially in the developing world - are unable to access the new knowledge. Science, more than any other field, builds on previous work. Every single scientist today, every single Nobel laureate has built upon and extended the work of previous generations. When today's developments are locked up tightly under copyrights, we actually slow down the scientific advances that will enhance and enrich our living standards tomorrow. Who knows if an article in a journal leads to an idea that ends up in a cure for cancer or that results in a viable form of space travel. If the bright spark is not allowed access, such important developments can get delayed maybe indefinitely.

In recent times, copyrights have been extended onto new creative forms. This first started off with movies and songs. Thus Disney was able to get copyright protection for Mickey Mouse, a character that created a new cultural reference. Interestingly, Mickey debuted in a film called Steamboat Willie which was a parody of another film called Steamboat Willie Jr. Thus we see that the earlier film created the cultural space for the introduction of an iconic new character. Later this protection got extended to the new medium of television and later still this was extended to computer software.

The emergence of personal computers, associated software and networking has vastly boosted the importance of copyrights. Before computers, copying a work was a tedious, difficult and costly procedure. Afterwards, it became simple and virtually cost free. The business models that had worked well in a pre personal computer age failed spectacularly post personal computers. Another development of the computer age has been that algorithms - the set of instructions that a computer can follow without human intervention - have become very important and copyrightable. So now, we have companies fighting over copyright issues that may seem arcane but which affect all of us now and will do so in the future. The decisions made today will affect how the culture of the future will develop. Unfortunately, these decisions are being made by entities whose primary interest is in locking down as much knowledge as they can for as long as they can. They do this because the immediate rewards are so great even though in the long run all of us will be impoverished.

Are copyrights needed? Yes and no. Individual creators need some form of protection for a period of time in order to possibly benefit from their creations. They may choose to give it away for free as some record labels do in order to create awareness but that should be their choice. The critical element is that of time. How long should individual creators be allowed to benefit from their creations. Here there is no single solution. What if the individual has a single hit in his or her lifetime? Should copyright protection expire early? In such a case, I think it should not. What about creators who have multiple hits? In their case, copyright protection can be dropped at an earlier stage. Ongoing works like blogs would certainly need to be protected for the life of the creator (or atleast a reasonable estimate of the same). Indeed after a specified period of inactivity, ongoing works can be released into the public domain.

In the case of corporations, copyright protection has to be limited. Companies are not reliant on any single hit. They have a steady ongoing stream of revenue. After having benefited for a period of time, why should they be allowed to enjoy what will essentially be rental income. Forcing earlier works into the public domain will not only allow other people to take the original into new directions, it will also force the company to innovate aggressively. In the end, our society and our culture will be better off.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Copyrights and Innovation - II

Copyrights create monopolies. Only one party is allowed to dictate how the copyrighted item is to be used. In a digital environment, copyrights serve as a powerful tool for extracting rental revenue, for control and for maintaining existing business models. Copyrights were not so important in an earlier age when copying things was difficult and expensive. Now computers and digital devices allow for an infinite number of perfect reproductions at a minimal cost. This threatens existing business models in several industries specially the creative ones. As a result, the importance of copyrights has suddenly exploded as companies and many artists use this as a mechanism to protect themselves from a massively unsettling change.

Earlier I argued that copyrights do not enhance innovation. The argument that they do so is based on a misunderstanding of the reasons why people innovate. The other argument passed in favor of copyrights and their strong enforcement is based on the right of the innovator to benefit from his/her innovation. This is a stronger albeit still flawed argument. Copyright law came into existence at a time when individuals were the main source of innovations. The argument that they should benefit from their work had validity then. To make that argument today is to ignore the nature of the copyrights that are now being granted. The majority of copyrighted material today is possessed by corporations. Most of the most iconic symbols of our age are under the copyright and this protection is being enjoyed largely by companies and not by individuals.

Companies are supposed to grow by bringing innovating new products and services. Instead what is happening today? By copyrighting material and preventing others from using it, companies are able to enjoy extraordinary profits which is a violation of economic efficiency which is a foundation of the capitalist system. A more insidious effect is that we have ceded the evolution of our culture to entities whose sole raison d'etre is to make money for a privileged group of individuals (their investors). Take Mickey Mouse as an example. This is an iconic symbol of our childhood - indeed of children around the world. Yet there is only one way in which Mickey Mouse can be presented to the world and that is the Disney way. Alternate expressions using the Mouse are prevented because of copyrights. The result is that our culture is impoverished. What we bequeath to our children and grandchildren will be a vision that has been dictated by a company for purely commercial considerations.

Copyrights also hamper economic development. This is an something that is often not appreciated. Look at the history of development of developed countries. Each and every one of them ignored copyright issues when they were developing. The reason is that ideas are extremely important at all stages of development. Developing countries need access to the latest ideas and techniques in various industries in order to implement them properly and thus grow their economies. The problem is that copyrights raise the cost of ideas and developing countries usually lack resources. For example, access to the latest scientific, management and trade journals is very expensive. If there is strong enforcement of copyrights, then most countries would not be able to access these ideas and as a result will steadily fall behind other countries in developing and growing their economies. It should be kept in mind that this is not just a problem for developing countries. Poor people will move around in search of economic opportunities as they always have. There will be (and has been) an upsurge in economic migrations driven by lack of domestic opportunities which in turn is caused by harsh copyright laws.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Copyrights and Innovation

Copyrights evolved as an incentive program. Give people a temporary monopoly in the form of a copyright and they will have an incentive to innovate. This begs the question what motivates innovation? The basic premise behind copyright is that innovation springs from commercial considerations. Somebody will innovate only if he or she can see some sort of eventual payoff. However, innovation comes from need and not from purely commercial considerations. Even in the absence of copyrights, innovation will still take place because the need to do so will be there. In the entire debate on copyright law and copyright issues, this point is usually overlooked.

So the question is does the presence of copyrights enhance innovation, has no effect on it or dilute it? And how does innovation happen in the first place? There is a lot of confusion on this latter point. The general impression is that innovations spring full blown springing seemingly out of nowhere. This is not and never has been the case. All innovations are additive in the sense that they rely and build on previous work. The ability to do so freely is a critical factor in spurring innovation. Where a monopoly is granted that prevents such additive work, innovation comes to a screeching halt.

Do copyrights enhance innovation. The short answer is no, they do not. The reason for this is the nature of protection that copyrights give. Granting a copyright to a product or a service or a process or whatever means giving a monopoly to a private party. All monopolists behave in the same fashion: they become rent seekers. The desire and ability of a monopolist to innovate declines in proportion to the length of the monopoly. This is true in all cases of a monopoly including market based ones. To illustrate this point consider the browser wars of the 1990s between Netscape and Microsoft. During the tussle itself, there was great innovation in browsers. When the latter won out, there was a resultant market based monopoly. The end result was that all innovation in browsers came to a halt. This situation remained until Firefox came along and eventually broke Microsoft's monopoly. In the case of a government granted monopoly (in the form of a copyright), there is no such happy ending as long as the monopoly remains. The copyright holder has very strong incentives to extract maximum revenue by charging high prices and at the same time has no incentive to improve upon the product (except perhaps incrementally) whatsoever - a classic case of rent seeking. Copyrights at best freeze the innovation process and at worst dilute it.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, April 25, 2011

Controlling Information - II

There is an aspect of controlling information that is not often recognized. It is a reflection of the way in which most governments tend to view their citizens. Most of us think of ourselves as rational beings with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and decide for ourselves what is the best course of action to take in any given situation. However, governments have a tendency to view us as essentially children in need of guidance. This is a very basic albeit unarticulated justification of secrecy which lies behind controlling information.

A question that can be asked at this point is so what if information is controlled in some fashion? Surely some level of secrecy is desirable at various levels. So long as most information is in the public, does it matter is some is hidden for some time. Good questions to which my answer is that it matters a great deal.

Controlling information has several aspects. One is the secrecy element which has been touched upon previously. Another element is distortion. Information can be hidden not just by hiding it but also by distorting it so that the general public's understanding is different from that of the "insiders". A prime example is the invasion of Iraq. Information was not really hidden in the run up to the war. Instead it was distorted so that most Americans got the (completely false) impression that Iraq was closely connected with the events of 9/11. In a much cruder fashion, the Arab dictatorships that are facing popular revolt are engaged in the same game. They seek to paint the uprising with the brush of Al Qaeda without presenting any proof of the alleged connection.

Distortion is also carried out by non government actors. These include think tanks, agenda driven NGOs, corporations and rich individuals. For a long time, the tobacco industry presented distorted information downplaying the risks of smoking. In recent times, Big Oil has been downplaying the risks of global warming by presenting distorted (and sometimes outright false) information. They seek to give an impression that the science behind global warming is still in doubt even though the overwhelming majority of scientists have been talking and writing about the same for a long time now. The objective over here is to prevent change and create conditions for business as usual to carry on for the sake of short term profits.

The result of controlling information can be disastrous for individuals and societies. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent uprising resulted in large numbers of men being killed. This left hundreds of households where suddenly women had to become providers in an atmosphere of high insecurity. Not surprisingly, there was an upsurge in prostitution as these women sought to make ends meet in a hostile environment. The denial campaign led by the tobacco companies resulted in a large number of tobacco related deaths that could otherwise have been prevented. Global warming is already affecting and will continue to affect millions of people. There will almost certainly be a huge upsurge in refugees. Already the number of people headed towards the developed countries has resulted in a massive uptick in xenophobia amongst the natives. What will happen when global warming really kicks in? The escalation in tensions that is bound to occur could easily end up in major conflicts which have a high probability of going nuclear.

Controlling information is not just about control. It is also a mind set. It is a thinking that says I know better than anyone else what is good for them as individuals and what is good for us as a society. It treats adults as children who need to be protected. It views most people as being too simple (and yes idiotic) to be given all the information that is relevant to them. Adults are thus unable to make informed decisions and choices regarding themselves and their families. The irony is that the people who seek to control information are too often blindsided by events. They think that they have all the relevant information that is required and then reality rudely interrupts and graphically demonstrates the flaws in their thinking. In the end, we all suffer.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Controlling Information

Information is and always has been key to acquiring and holding power. That is why controlling the spread and type of information has been a major priority of all governments down the ages. Giving people access to information has always empowered them while reducing the power of the ruling classes. As new communications technologies came onto the scene, they were gradually subsumed into existing power structures. At first this was done in an obvious manner but over time governments learned to control them behind the scenes. The trick was to convince people that the communication media they relied on was impartial while in actual fact it largely toed the government line.

Take the BBC. Is it impartial? Most people would not hesitate to say yes. But examine it more carefully and it typically acts as an extension of the UK government but never in an obvious manner. News that the government wants spread will receive widespread publicity while events that the government wants de-emphasized will be largely ignored. For example, why is there extensive coverage of Libya which has a ruthless dictator against whom the population are in revolt but we never hear about the protests that have started on a small scale within Saudi Arabia which has a largely self serving ruling tribe? Why is little coverage of the fact that Saudi troops are in Bahrain in an attempt to prevent a populist rebellion that happens to be largely driven by the Shia community?

Governments are not the only ones seeking to influence and control information. Large corporations and rich individuals also seek to do so. Their motivations are more commercial. Corporations seek a constant stream of concessions which are often against the economic interests of the general population. One way of securing these is to highlight the (alleged) benefits that corporations bring to communities while hiding the costs. Thus Walmart will emphasize the jobs that a new store will bring to a community while hiding the medical cost to the community because they pay their workers minimum wages and do not provide medical coverage. Rich individuals often use loopholes within the law to avoid taxes. They control and manipulate information (often indirectly) to the general public in order to avoid possible backlashes.

Military and intelligence services are usually among the most enthusiastic controllers of information. A lot of crimes can be hidden in the name of national security. The best part of this is that whenever national security is invoked, the notion that the country is in danger can be implanted in the minds of the citizens and that immediately becomes an emotive issue.

So information is controlled for a variety of reasons by a variety of forces. Most of these reasons are specious. The whole purpose of controlling information is to keep the general population in a state of ignorance regarding the true state of affairs in any issue. In democratic societies where covert control is not possible, the aim is to provide a superficial and distorted understanding of critical issues whereas autocratic societies can suppress any and all information.

Friday, April 22, 2011

The Purpose of a Nation State - I

Nation states have been powerful actors on the world stage for almost 500 years now. The nation state gave a political continuity along with a sense of belonging to a particular geographic area. These two combined factors unleashed energies that overwhelmed older style countries whose identities were linked largely to their ruling class.

Nation states developed gradually and fitfully in response to a need to remain on top of constantly shifting alliances in Europe. The initial impetus was almost certainly a desire by the ruling class to triumph over their adversaries and this particular solution was eventually the winning one. The state tried to monopolize the use of force within its boundaries. At the same time, it ensured that internal barriers to trade were dismantled thereby creating a unified national market. While these factors and others like them were linked to a basic desire for greater control, they ended up ensuring a political stability and continuity for the state. This meant that the people living in the geographic boundaries of a state started identifying closely with it thereby eventually ensuring that their desires were at least listened to by a previously aloof ruling class. These conditions also made industrialization possible. What was so unique about Britain that the process of industrialization started there? The answer can be found in the far greater political stability and continuity that the island state had.

Nation state also have a dark side. The very forces that unleashed the energies of industrialization also made possible increasingly powerful weapons of destruction. These weapons first made the subjugation of other parts of the world and then they were turned on the advanced states themselves twice. These wars were also accompanied by severe xenophobic reactions among the population. Thus Japanese Americans were interred in concentration camps after Pearl Harbor simply because of their racial origin. There was no protest among the general population despite the fact that vast majority of the people interred had been living in the US for several generations and identified themselves as Americans and not Japanese. The same xenophobia was exploited by the Nazis to keep the general population quiet while they went about the task of implementing their final solution against the Jews. The same xenophobia is at the root of the Hindu-Muslim riots that regularly strike several parts of India.

Today however a question needs to be asked: what is the purpose of the nation state now? Is it still a vital force on the world stage or has it become an anachronism that is hampering our political and social development as individuals, as groups and as a species.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Coping With Disaster

A disaster like an earthquake or a tsunami rips apart the bonds of civilization temporarily. The networks that normally operate and assist us in our daily lives stop working and people are left to their own devices. Life stops operating normally. What happens then? Do people turn on each other in a desperate bid for survival at any cost? What actually happens in the immediate aftermath of disaster is revealing. In case after case, the people in the affected area have turned to each other for help. Perfect strangers have done their best to aid their fellow humans. In the most trying of circumstances, networks are formed as people help not only themselves but also perfect strangers. In this fashion, humans show an innate empathy that is lacking in all other creatures. Even if the larger society fails to respond with aid in a timely fashion, the affected people rarely turn on each other unless instigated to do so in some fashion. This is a key point. We have an ability to empathize with others including perfect strangers. This empathy needs to be over ridden in some fashion before there can be descent into chaos.

How the broader society responds to a disaster depends on how egalitarian it is. Highly unequal societies will respond slowly no matter how rich they may be. Specifically they will respond in a piece meal fashion. The richer segments of society will be rescued fast while the less well off will be left largely to their own devices for a period of time. We saw this in action when Hurricane Katrina struck. The poor people who were stranded were left to their own devices while the state secured areas of concern to the well off. This occurred in the richest society in the world. Another problem in unequal societies is that there will always be people trying to take advantage of distress. Such people will try their best to over ride the empathy I talked of above since their interests are best served in chaotic conditions. More equal societies will respond in a speedy fashion to all the citizens in distress regardless of their economic status. People who try to take advantage of distress (and there are always some in any society) tend to get marginalized and rendered essentially harmless fairly quickly.

We are not brutes who are only kept in check by the controls imposed by civilization. This has always been the excuse of despots and would be despots down the ages. If people can be convinced that they are innately brutal, then strong controls can be imposed in the name of order. But events have shown again and again that when the need arises, humans reach out to help each other irrespective of relations. In this respect, an innate humanity wins out.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Society's Priorities - II

In one sense, the priorities of a society are a sum of our priorities as individuals living in that society. What we consider to be important as individuals gets aggregated and eventually translates into what we value as a society. In a capitalist society, the primary mode of this expression is via the marketplace - whether the marketplace is that of goods or of ideas.

The picture however is not as simple as this. Our individual priorities do not arise in a vacuum. They have always been influenced by our families and peers. The rise of mass media and new forms of communication have enabled external interests to also influence our individual priorities. Psychological tactics (of which marketing is an important part) are major tools that are used to influence us as individuals. In many cases, this is done for purely commercial purposes. Sometimes however, this is done to influence society in a particular direction. Even when done for purely commercial purposes, the result is often that society turns in a direction that perhaps is not conducive to its future.

Why is it that top actors are paid so highly while top teachers are paid a pittance? Is the work of actors really that much more important? Why are celebrities followed avidly while firefighters are ignored? Are the former really so vital to the proper functioning of our society? Why are bankers paid so much more than their peers in other industrial sectors to the extent that people with PhDs in Physics and Maths are working in the financial sector? Are bankers really that much more intelligent, harder working and more productive? Why do we have the phenomenon of celebrity CEOs? Why do we elevate and celebrate people who are essentially bureaucrats? Why are technicians valued more than artists or philosophers?

All of these show what we truly value as a society. As individuals, we will gravitate towards areas that our society values more highly. So we have the phenomenon of young people trying to become actors while teaching positions (or firefighting or police) lie vacant. We also see bankers awarding themselves huge bonuses shortly after causing a major economic collapse while police, firefighting and public health services are scaled back or shut down for a lack of money. Whatever rhetoric we may employ, there are areas of our society that we simply do not consider to be important even though objectively viewed they are necessary for the future health of our society.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Society's Priorities

A free market economy is a grand social experiment in societal priorities. The products and services we purchase, the types of jobs that are rewarded and the types that are not rewarded, the level of trust in personal and business interactions are all indications of the priorities that we have as a society. Our actions show what we value and what we don't. Rhetoric is cheap. It is easy to say anything specially if one feels that the words spoken will not come back to haunt them. Actions are what count.

Take education. Something that is vital for society's future prosperity. Without an educated workforce, many of the techniques and processes that are routinely discussed in the business community would simply not be possible. Most R&D in the public and private sector depends on the continuous infusion of young researchers who bring in a fresh perspective on old problems. So given that education is so important, teaching should be among the most highly paid of professions. The fact that it isn't specially at the primary and secondary levels says that despite our rhetoric, as a society, education is actually not considered very important.

Finance on the other hand is seemingly vital to an economy's health and success. The work that financial managers do is far more important to society than all other sectors of the economy despite the fact that finance is in essence a service industry which needs other sectors in order to exist. That is why the financial sector routinely hands out multi-million dollar packages thereby attracting the best talent and starving other sectors of the same.

Given our spending patterns, it seems that as a society, we care more about consuming in the present than preserving and adding for the future. As a group, our priorities are geared more towards enjoyment of the present despite the warnings that we have been given in the shape of various economic crises that have arisen from time to time.

Monday, April 18, 2011

End of Times

People have long had a strong fascination with the end of times meme. The imminent destruction of the world, typically in a fiery manner, has been a staple of predictions across cultures. While most people have focused on the mechanics of the end of times, the more interesting question is why is there such fascination with such gloomy predictions? Instead of asking how the world will end, it is perhaps more pertinent to explore why people find the end of the world so fascinating.

Since the start of agriculture, humans have had a strong interest in trying to predict the future. There are excellent reasons for doing so. If you are a farmer planning to plant next year's crop, then you want to know whether the rainfalls will come on time or whether the river will flood as it should. You want some predictability in an inherently unpredictable world in order to be able to plan ahead with some degree of confidence. These and other similar reasons were probably the origin of most oracles and seers. Later on as civilization developed and people started congregating in towns and then cities, the importance of future predictions increased. Rulers would want to know what kind of surplus would be generated for use. What the result of battles with the enemy will be like. Will the people be happy or at the very least content. The ruled would want to be able to plan out their lives with some degree of precision. Over time, these arts started becoming more formalized and today we have astrologers who claim to be able to predict personal and national futures.

Along the way, another interesting development took place in the art of predictions. Regular claims of the end times started appearing with increasing frequency. These claims typically increase in frequency during times of national stress. Thus changes in dynasties were usually accompanied by such predictions. They also tend to increase in frequency during significant calendar years. When a millennium change occurs, such predictions surface with greater rapidity. Sometimes they occur due to religious reasons. For example, the early Christians were convinced of the imminent arrival of Jesus in their lifetimes. When the second millennium started, again they were convinced that Jesus was about to come. In recent times, there have been two main drivers of the end time meme. One was the change of the millennium in both the Christian and the Islamic calendars. The other was the Mayan Long Count calendar. The latter is the most accurate calendar devised by humans until the modern era. Its accuracy rivals that of the modern calendar that we use today. This calendar can be used to project dates both backwards and forwards literally thousands of years without any loss of accuracy. Yet the Maya ended their calendar at a date that corresponds to the winter solstice, 2012. Nobody knows why. This mystery has set the stage for a large degree of speculation regarding the significance of this end date.

These two strands taken together have created a buzz that has grown over time as the calendar moves forward into 2012. A variety of predictions and speculation float around the internet. Some predict the coming Age of Aquarius which will bring peace and prosperity while others predict death and destruction on a massive scale from which only a few will be saved. On the face of it, this obsession with the end times is strange. The standard of living that a large number of people enjoy would have been unimaginable to even the richest person just a few generations ago. Over time, more and more people have attained this standard. A large number enjoy amenities that their parents could only dream about. The pace of technological advance has  meant that people can now live and work anywhere in the world and not be cut off from their family members left behind. There has been an increase in the variety and quality of food available. The average age of individuals has steadily increased over the last 100 years and shows no sign of slowing down. The average intelligence of the world's population has been increasing over time as a result of better nutrition and greater security.

With all of these positives, why are people attracted towards end world scenarios? Could it be related to the rapid pace of change in society that has occurred in recent times? We are constantly and increasingly rapidly being bombarded with new technologies and ideas that constantly change the way we behave and think. The old certainties of yesterday are gone. They have not been replaced with new ones. In their place, we are left groping in the dark trying to make sense of the new world around us. The older we get, the faster the changes arrive and the more problem we have in adjusting to new realities. Perhaps the attraction of the end time predictions is that they have an aura of certainty around them.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, April 15, 2011

Managing Religion

Religion is a powerful organizing force in the world despite massive efforts to belittle its importance and utility. This has been a problem for most governments since religious passions are difficult to predict and control. Authorities interfere with religion at their own peril. We have many examples in history where religion inspired wars and revolutions. The events of 1857 in India, the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, the Mormon migration of 1847 and the many pogroms in Europe throughout the Middle Ages were inspired to a lesser or greater extent by religious passions. As a result, throughout history, authorities in charge have either tried to clamp down on religion usually unsuccessfully or they have tried to co-opt it and make it subservient to the state.

Demagogues and people seeking an issue they can champion find it very easy to raise the cry "[xyz religion] is in danger!" This almost invariably causes large numbers of people to come out in support of their religion. Once a large enough group assembles, mob behavior quickly takes over. The problem for demagogues and society in general is that once this happens, it is almost impossible to control events. Religious passions are easy to ignite but difficult to tamp down. In the heat of the moment, individuals will engage in actions that they would under normal circumstances never consider doing. What such people do not stop to consider this that the religion whose name they have come out to defend is actually being manipulated to serve nefarious interests. This is one aspect of managing religion.

Because of the relative ease with which religious passions can be inspired, rulers have always had a strong interest in making it subservient to the perceived needs of the state. A basic motivation is to prevent religiously inspired riots and insurrections and preserve law and order or at the very least control. A deeper motivation is that religion can be used to make people quiescent. No matter how repressive the regime or social order, religion can be used as a tool to make people quietly accept the existing order. For this purpose, the state often co-opts religious authorities essentially by making them part of the existing establishment so that they have a strong interest in maintaining the existing order. This is another aspect of managing religion.

Sometimes religion is used to stratify societies. Hinduism has used this to great effect. It has divided its adherents into castes and sub-castes. If you are born into a particular caste, you cannot aspire to things and activities reserved for other castes. Castes themselves have a strong hierarchy so that some are superior than others. The beauty of this system is that it is self perpetuating and virtually immune to pressure from within. How can someone challenge the divine order? Doing so means damnation of the soul. In this way, religion is used to perpetuate a class system. This is yet another aspect of managing religion.

In modern times and specially in advanced economies, traditional religion is belittled and mocked for its supposed superstition and backwardness. The irony is that the people who do so have in essence elevated science to the status of religion. This is still another aspect of managing religion.

The pawns in all of this are people's belief systems. Many politicians, religious leaders, dictators, demagogues or people seeking to make themselves famous use religion as a tool to advance their personal, narrow interests. Often the harm that they cause is enormous. All the blame for this harm is laid on the door of the religion concerned when in actual fact, the real blame lies elsewhere.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 14, 2011

The Lure of Power

Exactly what is the lure of power? Why do despots fiercely cling to power no matter what the consequences may be for their country? Is it because they believe themselves to be indispensable? Do they view themselves as father figures guiding their child like population to safety?

One possible reason can be money. Almost every single dictator has been massively corrupt looting millions if not billions from their countries over the course of their rule. Frequently this looting is accompanied by a deliberate breakdown of law and order and an undermining of any countervailing institutions. Building these is a pre-requisite of good governance but they would also act as a check on the looting that dictators love to indulge in.

However, while this is a major component, it cannot be the sole one. If that were the case, dictators would tend to flee when the population rises in revolt. Instead they cling on desperately and willingly push their countries into civil war like Gaddafi has done in Libya. In some cases, the despots may not be personally corrupt but they will still refuse to share power. Bahrain is currently following this route. So why try to hang on to power once the population is out on the streets and has made it clear that you are not wanted?

Incidentally power also seems to have major health benefits. The more absolute the power, the greater the apparent health benefits. Take a look at the despots sprinkled far too liberally around the world. Each one of them is a picture of robust health as long as they are power. However, most of them fall ill and die shortly after losing that power. Dictator after dictator has been the picture of robust health as long as they have control only to fall into illness and dying fairly quickly after being kicked out.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Exploitation and Technology

Modern society has a very large element of exploitation in it. This occurs at different levels and is manifested in different ways. All of us play a role in it. We are at the same time exploiters and the exploited. Over time, the level and sophistication of the exploitation has increased at an ever rapid pace. This increase has largely been driven by technology. In this sense, technology is an enabler and at the same time an enslaver.

One of the primary requirements for exploitation is information. In order to exploit people and situations, we need access to the appropriate information. This does not mean that exploitation will not occur in the absence of information. It will. It will merely be done at a very crude level. Every transaction and interaction has a physical component and an informational component. It is the informational component that is vital for exploitation to take place.

While we are surrounded by an invisible web of information, for most of history, it was very difficult to actually capture and use it in any meaningful fashion. The cost and difficulty of doing so was simply too large. Technology has always been used to try and capture this information. The development of writing and the increasing sophistication of writing materials were amongst the first steps in this regard. However, the pace of technological change in the past was simply too low to allow for widespread gathering of the necessary information. The industrial revolution changed that. The technological changes it engendered in many different fields increasingly enabled larger and larger quanta of information to be efficiently and ever cheaply gathered. This enabled exploitation on a previously unimaginable scale. The forced labor of Stalinist Russia was only possible by the technological advances made possible with the Industrial Revolution.

Today, with several different technologies converging, the amount of data that is captured on a daily basis by a wide variety of organizations is simply astonishing. The limiting factor right now is processing this information into usable knowledge in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost and there is a large amount of serious research that is looking into this aspect. The advances made therein have allowed people to be exploited with ever greater efficiency and ruthlessness. At the same time, we have mostly been convinced that we are not being exploited at all.

A prime example of this is modern globalization. At the start of this process, blue collar jobs got outsourced. Middle class fears were allayed by the claim that advanced economies can concentrate on more value added, knowledge intensive work while the affected workers were convinced that job losses were their own fault. Again, technology was a prime enabler for the process by lowering transportation and communication costs to a level where management of far flung factories became possible in almost real time. Also from this time on the blue collar jobs that remained had this particular sword hanging over their heads. But technological forces also enabled the exploitation of middle class jobs. The knowledge jobs that were supposed to be the domain of the advanced economies can just as easily (and more cheaply) done by developing economies because no one has a lock of acquiring knowledge. This enabled middle class workers to be exploited as well by playing on fears of losing jobs.

Another great enabler and exploiter has been the Internet. This has allowed for new kinds of goods and services which have become integral parts of our professional and private lives. People can express themselves in ways that were simply not possible before. The rise of bloggers is an excellent example of this. Before the Net, the publishing houses acted as gatekeepers. They decided who got published and who did not. Here printing technology had liberated by lowering the cost of a book but enabled a group (publishers) to exploit another one (authors). The Internet enabled a larger group of people to bypass the gatekeepers and get themselves published at a nominal cost. Blogging has become a powerful and empowering phenomenon. At the same time, bloggers have been arrested and otherwise harassed for writing about things that powerful interests do not want to be generally aired: the most prominent example of this being Wikileaks. Again technology broke one form of exploitation and acted as a liberating force. At the same time, it made possible a different form of exploitation.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

On Exploitation

The word exploitation brings to mind visceral images of sweatshop labor; people working under abysmal conditions for next to no pay making overpriced goods meant for richer markets. Alternatively, we think of women being forced into prostitution. Whatever image comes to mind, in our minds exploitation happens to poor people living in third world countries.

We could not be more wrong. Every single one of us is being exploited on a daily basis. This exploitation is occurring at different levels and with different degrees of sophistication. No one is immune. The exploitation is to such an extent that even the exploiters in one area are themselves being exploited in other areas. We have built our society based on mass exploitation and the beauty of this system is that the vast majority of people are largely unaware of what is going on.

Our exploitation takes on many different forms. Some of it is emotional. Most commercial messages use this form. When we are bombarded by messages showing images of beautiful people and perfect families working and playing in idyllic conditions, in effect we are being manipulated into feeling bad about ourselves and our situation. The idea is to motivate us to buy the product or service being advertised in the (usually vain) hope that by using it, we will somehow become like the people being shown. This emotional exploitation has been honed to a high degree of sophistication. We think that we are immune to the effects of advertising when the reality is that we are not. No matter how cynical we may be, our defenses will eventually be breached in some fashion by the sheer volume of repetition of the messages.

Some forms of exploitation are based on fear. Virtually the entire insurance industry uses this form specifically the fear of what will happen to our loved ones if we were to die suddenly. This form of exploitation is also heavily used by other companies. The threat of being sacked if we were to go against the wishes of the management or if we were to protest our working conditions is hung over our head like the sword of Damocles. This fear is used to tame us into submission. There is also the additional fear of poverty that will befall us if we were to rock the boat.

Sexual exploitation is ofcourse a staple of modern society. Virtually every ad is filled with beautiful women and handsome men in some state of undress. Similarly movies and to a great extent TV also have this form of exploitation. Keep in mind that the exploitation depicted is not just that of the models shown. We are being exploited into viewing women (and men) essentially as objects and not as humans. When a woman or a man wears tight clothing, are they not the victims of sexual exploitation? Nor is this exploitation restricted to adults only. Children are not exempt. Beauty contests for little children is a form of exploitation that is done by the willing connivance of parents who have essentially been brainwashed into thinking there is no harm in the activity.

No matter where we are or who we are, we are both manipulators and victims. We carry out some form of exploitation often without realizing it and we ourselves are exploited in some fashion again usually without our realizing it.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, April 11, 2011

Ambiguity - II

As I have stated before, we live in a world full of ambiguous situations. However, we seem to be hardwired to avoid ambiguity. This ofcourse made sense in our remote past. If I am a hunter-gatherer, then I better be sure that the shadow I see in the bush I am about to pass is not some lion or other dangerous beast that could attack and kill me. If I am an early farmer, I better be sure about when to plant so that I don't go hungry later on.

So when we encounter ambiguous situations in the modern world, we are unsure how to react. By definition, ambiguous situations are novel ones; If we had encountered a similar situation previously, we would have some idea how to react. The human body has two basic responses to a given situation: fight or flight. Both types require a fairly high level of certainty. Ambiguous situations do not lend themselves to the required level. As a result, our bodies are under almost constant stress. This ultimately leads to high levels of chronic stress related problems in the populace.

Unfortunately, the level of ambiguity in society is not going down. Rather the opposite is happening. Scientific and technical discoveries are on an exponential trajectory. These often lead to a high level of social changes occurring in society. Take the whole social media phenomenon at whose apex Facebook is currently sitting. This has introduced a whole new method of interaction. But the rules are not clear. For example, what is a poke? What happens if I "poke" somebody. Is it polite? Rude? Does it send some kind of message that I don't want to send? If I see somebody's information, am I being curious or am I stalking? Should I bombard my friends with constant status updates? All these are important questions with as yet no clear answers. There is no doubt that as a society we will evolve some standardized response to these types of question in this type of situation. But then we will encounter some new type of situation and again we will have the same problem.

Our situation is like being on a treadmill that keeps going faster and faster and so we have to run harder and harder in order to stay upright. This is ultimately exhausting and many people give up what seems to be a hopeless struggle. Is there then no solution? Are we doomed to keep struggling in the face of new, ambiguous situations that will crop up with monotonous and ever increasing regularity? Personally I am hopeful. I like to think that we will come up with some heuristics to help guide us through this ambiguous maze that modernity has constructed around us.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Ambiguity

We live in an ambiguous world. The old certainties have been stripped away leaving us uncertain of where we stand. This phenomenon has occurred no matter where we live as a proliferation of media outlets, the spread of the Internet coupled with the spread of mobile phones and globalization brought each of us in increasingly close contact with other cultures and peoples. The conflict that this engenders can be seen most closely in the children of immigrants. The people who originally immigrated have had a particular kind of upbringing that inculcated in them a particular set of values both moral and cultural. They expect their children to follow these same values heedless of the fact that the children have grown up in a different cultural context. The clash that almost invariably follows often results in the certainties of the parents being destroyed. Nor is this restricted to immigrants. The mere presence of immigrants with their strange customs and values (and often religion) ends up shaking those of the natives themselves. Just as the interaction of two generations of immigrants results in the old certainties of the parents being stripped away, the interaction of immigrants and natives does the same for the latter.

Changes in the social environment also result in ambiguity. As an example, earlier generations of men were generally speaking sure of their place in the world. They were the breadwinners for the family while their wives were the homemakers. Now that women have entered the workforce in large numbers, men are no longer sure of their place in the world specially if the wife ends up earning more money than the husband. The new conditions have resulted in an ambiguity leaving people unsure of how to behave. Nor is the workplace exempt from ambiguity. Again to take the above example, the induction of women in the workforce has rendered old modes of behavior obsolete without specifying new modes. Again an ambiguous situation has been created leaving people unsure of how to behave.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, April 8, 2011

Perspectives on History - II

We all have a shared history. The problem is that we tend to remember it differently. History inspires a lot of passion because it strikes at the heart of how we perceive ourselves. We all like to see ourselves and our nation as having been a force for (perhaps ultimate) good. In this regard, colonialism inspires a lot of passion. The thing is that there are many factors which together affect both the happening and outcome of any historical event. To separate one strand from all rest is to view history in monochrome instead of technicolor.

Take colonialism as an example. I wrote in an earlier post (Perspectives on History - Part I) that the same historical event will be viewed and remembered differently by the participants. Their perspectives will be different along with the lessons regarding themselves that they draw. Colonialism shows this to an high degree. Was the impact of colonialism on the conquered peoples positive or negative? Arguments can be drawn for both sides. Consider India. It was ruled by the British for almost 150 years first through a proxy - the East India Company and then directly. Did India benefit? This question and questions like this for other parts of the world draw rather polarized responses. On the positive side, the British introduced modern physical infrastructure like railways and later roads and electricity. They built an excellent irrigation system that brought large areas of new land under cultivation. They imposed law and order on what had previously been lawless areas. They introduced a bureaucracy generally considered to be incorruptible. They left behind traditions of parliamentary democracy. Both India and Pakistan have benefited from exposure to English which has become a global language. On the other hand, they destroyed India's textile industry so that the British one could benefit. The physical infrastructure they did build was done so keeping in mind the Empire's needs. The needs of the people were not a paramount consideration. Indians were allowed into the higher levels of government very grudgingly and only after strong popular pressure. Even then the needs of the Empire took precedence. For example, the Government of India declared war on Japan and Germany without consulting any Indian politician. The bureaucracy they introduced was paternalistic and patronizing. This bureaucracy considered that it knew best what was good for the people under its control. So which view is correct? The answer is it depends. For a truer, more complete picture, all these different factors need to be kept in mind.

History is too rich a tapestry to be watered down. Doing so results in a far poorer understanding of where we come from. As a result we will not understand our present and will fail to understand the course of our future.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 7, 2011

The Paradox of Development

Human history has been a story of connections. Over the entire course of history, people have forged connections with others. Initially starting with immediate neighbors and then moving on further and further afield. Sometimes the connections made were peaceful, sometimes not. The unequal distribution of resources in the world led to the development of trade which in turn led to further and deeper connections being made. These ever closer connections are an important aspect of development. This process of forging connections was slow but over the very long term steady despite setbacks like collapse of empires (the Roman Empire being a prominent example) and the occasional appearance of devastating diseases like the Black Plague. Industrialization vastly accelerated this process. It is as though the accelerator has been jammed down hard.

Industrialization enabled two very important developments. It lowered transportation cost for all sorts of products (including people) and it lowered communication cost between different regions of the world. Furthermore, it did this while vastly accelerating both processes at the same time. So goods could be transported further and faster and at the same time communication between different regions became more and more in real time.

Today we are all linked together in a vast network spanning the globe. All kinds of goods are routinely ordered from around the world for sale or consumption elsewhere. Families which used to be clustered in a village are now scattered all across. No one is surprised if say a brother is living in one country while a sister may be married and settled in another and the parents live in a third. Again we call this development. Opportunities used to be local. Now they are global. The biggest beneficiaries are corporations. The process of development has resulted in a globalization in which corporations now straddle the world. Unlike most previous entities, these giants have operations in different parts of the world. For example design may be done in the USA, while manufacturing is handled by China, market research may be done from India while the supply chain may be coordinated from the UK. The world of today is a complex interlocking structure which can smoothly transfer goods and services in different stages to different parts of the world at ever lower costs. This is a sophisticated, complicated structure with a unique elegance and beauty. All of this being accomplished without the aid of any central agency.

However, there is a paradox embedded in the heart of this structure. As this structure has become more global and more closely linked (which is an ongoing process), it has also become more fragile. As we have become more dependent on this system of connections, we have also become more vulnerable. The interesting thing is that the more dependent we are on this system, the more vulnerable we are. A shock administered to one part is felt in other parts and other areas of the system. Take Japan. A massive earthquake is followed by a massive tsunami. Large areas are devastated. There is major property damage and unfortunately also major loss of life. A terrible tragedy for the Japanese people. But the fallout from this event is felt in other parts of the world. Suddenly there is a recognition that Japan needs to rebuild. For that it will need money and is very likely to liquidate assets held abroad in order to finance reconstruction. Japan is also a major holder of US treasury bonds. What will happen to the US economy and the value of the US dollar if it starts selling large quantities of these? Many American companies, specially electronics ones, source material from Japan. Now these are heavily affected. Are there alternate suppliers with enough spare capacity to take up this lost production? If they do, how quickly can they gear up production? Fragility. An event in one part of the world is shaking other parts. Another example: Libya. Inspired by the events of Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyans launch their own protest against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. Unlike the other countries, Gaddafi strikes back hard and the country descends into a civil war. Libya however is a large oil producer. All of a sudden this capacity goes offline as far as the rest of the world is concerned. What happens next? Oil prices spike up. Again an event in one part of the world starts shaking up other areas. Fragility.

On a smaller scale, the fragility of the modern world can be seen in our cities. Modern cities are miracles of organization mostly unplanned. Our cities contain huge number of people living cheek by jowl. Vast quantities of different kinds of food and water need to be shipped in daily and distributed efficiently. Equally vast quantities of waste material need to be disposed of again on a daily basis. Cities are major centers of production and provide services essential for the smooth functioning of a modern economy. As an example, America's economic growth would be severely impaired if cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco were to become dysfunctional. Cities are a sophisticated and thus a fragile system. What would happen if say a major earthquake were to cut off road and rail links and render airports unusable so that food supplies into the city are severely curtailed? People living in modern, developed cities are dependent on the smooth and timely functioning of the overall system. If it gets disrupted in a major way, starvation is a distinct possibility. Hungry people are not quiet people and so a breakdown of law and order would be very much on the cards. Again, more sophisticated the system, more fragile it is.

If developed countries with their highly sophisticated systems are so fragile, then developing countries should be like a house of cards. Interestingly enough, this is not necessarily so. Developed country systems are tightly linked together and are dependent on all parts functioning smoothly. Developing country systems are not so tightly linked together. People living in these systems are more used to fending for themselves simply because the system in which they live is usually dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree. This also means that in times of need, local communities will rally together simply because they are more attuned to doing so. These systems are thus more robust because they are more primitive. That in a nutshell is the paradox of development: the greater the development, the more tightly linked different parts of the system are, the more fragile the overall system becomes.
Enhanced by Zemanta