A conflict of interest was recently brought to my attention in conversation with a dear friend of mine. Having sought to increase knowledge about Schistosoma mansori ‘for the betterment of mankind’ by doing immunology research, she recently paused to reflect on the well-being of the dear little rodents that were giving up their lives for the sake of humankind and felt a pang or two of sympathy (to say the least). She said to me "I'm sure you have an opinion on this." At the time I didn't, but as I thought more and more about it, I thought maybe it was something that might prove valuable to explore. So here goes...
Animal ethics. A very difficult topic for so many reasons, least of which is the prevailing trend of anthropocentrism in many, if not most, major religious and socio-political ideologies prevalent today. One only need read through Genesis to see that according to Christianity, the rest of the universe exists in relation to humanity. Marxist ontology describes the major dialectical clash as the one existing between man and nature: “Neither nature objectively nor nature subjectively is adequate to the human being… History is the true natural history of man.” Arendt speaks of ‘The Human Condition’: “Whatever touches or enters into a sustained relationship with human life immediately assumes he character of a condition of human existence.” Even Hinduism, which treats the sacred cow with so much respect and dignity (and I really do miss their random presence in the streets everywhere), is merely returning a favour for the manner in which this animal almost single-handedly provided a means for human survival at one point. There are exceptions of course, chiefly Buddhism in which some sects refuse to deal with even the most difficult problems created by natural pests (I recall a fairly recent story of a group somewhere in Southeast Asia whose situation was so bad that they had to call in an exterminator to deal with a major ant problem: although they weren’t allowed to harm these beings, it seemed that the situation was so desperate that they felt that they could call in someone else to do the ‘harming’ for them).
Of course we now have many Animal Rights groups that protect the livelihood of other species of the Animal Kingdom, but when it comes to putting our own well-being ahead of those of any ‘lesser’ species, most individuals don’t seem to worry too much. And they often wield this lack of general concern in strange ways, the ‘mongoose incident’ in the late 1800s in Hawaii being one such abuse of nature, which ended up providing a greater problem than the original one (mongooses hunt during the day and rats are largely nocturnal, idiots!). And then there is the recent hubbub about whether transplanting lemurs from Madagascar to one of the British Virgin Islands owned by Richard Branson is such a good idea with respect to guaranteeing their survival (and whether it is not just about guaranteeing their survival but also about increasing profits to his multi-million dollar resorts on the island). Animal rights has led the way in overseeing and imposing more ‘humane’ treatment of animals, even those that will inevitably be led to the slaughter to grace our hamburger buns with a large dollop of tasty protein. But there is not too much of an issue here: the presence of a carnivorous bent to the animal kingdom has been ever-present since the first prehistoric fishes some time ago in the middle Paleozoic era (just a guess, but somewhere around there). Though there will always be grumblings about extent, the presence of meat in the human diet has become something of a given, just as we seldom spare a thought for the poor lettuce that has recently been decapitated and is soon to become the basis for a tasty Caesar salad.
Though killing animals for food is seemingly more than justifiable (after all, if I don’t eat the scrumptiously delicious and magically nutritious foreleg of this critically endangered white rhinoceros, some pride of lions somewhere in the sub-Saharan savannah will, right?), when it comes to science there is seemingly a sliding scale about what is and is not acceptable. These animals are no longer directly sustaining our well-being by sacrificing their thoroughly delicious hindquarters to our butchers and/or sadistic sportsmen; instead we are pumping them full of drugs, making them dance on hot plates, and carefully noting the exact second that each of rodent number one and rodent number two finally became so exhausted that they no longer have any choice but to sizzle. Or, if we step it up a few stages, we are pumping them full of drugs, cuffing them to a wall, and carefully noting the exact second that each of chimpanzee number one and chimpanzee number two shuffle off to the much less torturous and much more forgiving shadowy realm of dreamland… (or, at the very least, sleepland…)
Yet I mentioned a 'sliding scale' and with good reason. Who knows where the world of genetics (and/or the biology lab experiments that it spurned) would be without the ever-present Drosophila melanogaster? Of course, it is a lot more difficult to cry foul at the ‘torture’ and ‘indiscriminate killings’ of insects (come to think of it, where was the aforementioned individual’s sympathy to all of those parasitic nematodes that she was sending to a rodenty grave?), especially since much of the medical research that is being done is with one eye on ATTEMPTING to kill 'exponentially lesser' beings like viruses, bacteria, nematodes, flukes, mosquitoes, etc. And most shan't really miss them if/when they are gone. But research can only go so far on such simple beings, chiefly because they share almost no physiological traits with human beings. 'We ain't nothin but mammals', so we have to start somewhere, and mice, being the smallest, the most readily available, and traditionally a bit of nuisance were nominated as the de facto playthings of sadistic biologists.
The question is 'why do we care?' I know from personal experience walking around at night in Mumbai with gigantic rats in constant chorus scurrying across streets and through the tiniest gaps is a bit unnerving; they are often harbingers of disease both as vectors for the diseases themselves and vectors in terms of spreading around large amounts of garbage and/or filth, for all intents and purposes making less than sanitary areas even worse. But the mutant rats of Mumbai are not cute white mice. And these mice are factory-made and settled completely for the purposes of satisfying the aforementioned sadistic biologists. Is this wrong? Is it any more wrong to breed such victims for the purposes of selling them to people who need to satisfy the cravings of their pet amphisbaena or whatever they might have in their aquarium upstairs? Again, as with the discussion above, these furry little creatures are properly involved in 'the circle of life' in the latter case, but only artificially so in the former case. But what's so unethical about sending them to the sacrificial bio-altar? We gave them life for the explicit purposes of taking it away. Without these sadistic biologists, these mice wouldn't have existed in the first place...
Well for starters, it is true that according to the ideal life-world model we are only really transforming existing particles, molecules, cells from one state to another. Remember the principle of conservation of matter from Grade 10 science? 'Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is only transformed': well quantum physicists and general relativity junkies might have something to say about that, but it is approximate enough. However, when we change matter from dormant cells to living cells, and then throw them out as refuse when we are done with them, they tend to accumulate in not so nice ways. In theory we could grind them up into some nice milkshakes for our cats, but this is not normally done for obvious reasons, chief of which is that these mice have just been pumped with possibly harmful substances that could have nasty side-effects if ingested. So instead of that their disposal must be much better thought out. Mouse disintegration can lead to its drug-laced bodily fluids leaching into groundwater, etc, and this is not such a nice prospect for the animals and human beings that are affected by this groundwater, unless, perhaps, they were testing for more potent forms of LSD.
So from a purely environmental point of view, there is a problem. What about from an ethical point of view? Well unlike viruses, bacteria, and plants (aside from mandrakes, of course) animals have sensory receptors that allow them to feel pain. So technically what is being done to them amounts to torture. In effect, biologists are playing out the good cop, bad cop routine: "I'll put you in this nice house where you can gorge yourself silly and have all of the exercise you want on this little wheel... AND NOW I WILL INJECT WITH THIS TRUTH SERUM... TELL ME WHAT IT DOES THROUGH THE OBSERVABILITY OF YOUR UNWITTING ACTIONS!!" But they're just mice, right? Just like that baby that was unplanned and couldn't be aborted because of various state-imposed laws was just found in a dumpster because nothing else could be done for it. Simple, no? What is our responsibility to these creatures when we play God for the sake of discovering ways for God to live a healthier and fuller life? Or are there any?
Opinions vary, but tend to be less and less forgiving the more 'complex' and 'conscious' the animal in question is: you won't find too many people agreeable to monkeys being put on exercise wheels, injected with drugs, and then checked for time of death, partly because they are not as physiologically dispensable given their gestation and maturation time, and they are also not as ethically dispensable because the pain and suffering that they feel garners much more sympathy in the people who are the direct cause of it. It is a real ontological conundrum: are some life-forms more valuable and/or disposable than others? And if so, what makes them so? Consciousness or lack thereof? Pain and suffering or lack thereof? Their ability to garner sympathy (i.e. 'cuteness') or lack thereof? Other physiological qualities such as gestation time, maturation time, upkeep, complexity, etc?
And then there are the humans themselves. If we want what's best for the human race, why not limit our studies to human 'victims'. That way no unsuspecting or unconsenting animal gets hurt. There are even more problems with this, though there have been many rumours (and real incidences, e.g. MK-ULTRA) where this has indeed gone on. Maybe its not so far-fetched that this is the new scientific norm that is being implemented to avoid sacrificing these poor animals: another 'massive social experiment' as Heidegger once called the Nazi movement.
Let's just hope that this one doesn't also 'go horribly wrong'...
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Cargo Cults, Causality, Capitalism (and Mathematics) (Part II)
And now the next, and quite possibly last chapter.
Teaching mathematics, especially in Africa, is a bit thankless. The foremost reason for this is that, more often than not, no one really cares. People take a course and they say "I cant wait to be done with this. All I need is a pass and then I will never have to take another mathematics course again." And I ask "so why are you in this course then?" And more often than not, the answer is something to the effect of "because I have to"; most of these individuals are in economics or math finance or actuarial or something like this. In other words, mathematics has gone from a search for truth to a means to perpetuate greed. Hurrah!
But there is a reason for this, and it points to a much larger problem. Basically, I think there are two elements at play here. One is that the lack of real conflict in the last century on North American soil has meant that it has been able to maintain a great deal of uniformity in its educational approach, and hence it has been allowed to develop in a way that maintains a certain amount of continuity with much more historical treatments of education, namely in terms of a more meritocratic system of developing ideas, experimentation, discovery, and notions of 'truth'. Because of this, the strong roots that it was allowed to maintain with mathematics in terms of major ideological debates that strike at its very core, such as the one that surrounded the Hilbert program, etc. This has allowed it to able to maintain a certain level of 'ivory tower' status against the recent push for the commodification and corporatization of education. On the other hand, South Africa in particular and Africa in general does not have: a) the historical continuity that allows for this, b) the economic history to that allows it to put 'theory' before 'practice' (since so many people have so little, it is incredibly difficult to conceive of people having time to spend 'contemplating their navels' as it were), and c) the current economic feasibility to try to instill any sort of change in ideology, etc.
But the bigger problem is the state of education in general. A recent article that notes that there are only one or two universities in Africa that feature in the top echelons of university rankings systems provides some insight:
“Africa inherited a higher education system that was a carbon copy of [that of] the powers that colonised it. Right from the beginning, Africa started on a wrong footing – well behind the starting line, so to speak. Despite all the political and economic turmoil it has gone through since independence – often of its own making – it is now expected to compete on a completely non-level playing field. Not only is this unfair, it is also inappropriate,” says Mohamedbhai, who has also served as vice-chancellor of the University of Mauritius. “One could argue that other regions that were also colonised – South Asia, Latin America – are doing reasonably well. However, none of these regions suffered from the sort of exploitation that Africa underwent and continues to experience.”
Latin America cannot be put in this category simply because their colonization occurred centuries before Africa and Asia: they have been able to generate a reasonable amount of uniformity and, moreover, when the Europeans relinquished control of these countries there was still a fairly long period within which they could develop out of the limelight of the 'modern world' that allows for individuals, groups, corporations, etc. to jump from one continent to the next at the drop of a hat. Brazil's independence from Portugal was 'recognized' in 1825, Argentina from Spain in 1816, Chile in 1844, etc. In fact, other than the three 'Guyanas' that were claimed by the British, Dutch, and French respectively, and are largely seen politically as part of the West Indies, only one country achieved full independence after Canada did in 1867. That country was Peru: although it was declared long before in 1821, it was only officially 'recognized' in 1879. Contrast that to Africa where, aside from Egypt which has basically been able to maintain its independence throughout its history because of the very strong historical legacy of Egypt, all countries only emerged from European colonization in the mid-20th century, with Tunisia and Morocco the first to gain independence in 1956, and Ghana the first sub-Saharan country to gain their independence in 1957.
Moreover, South Asian universities also tend to be quite low on the scale, and aside from Thailand, which has maintained its monarchical rule throughout its history, all of these other South Asian nations also emerged from colonial rule only post-WWII. Those countries that have done exceptionally well in Asia, namely Japan, China, and South Korea have largely been spared the Western colonial cosh, though they have had their differences throughout history (i.e. the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and their occupation of the Korea peninsula until the division of Korea occurred post-WWII).
The two exceptions are Hong Kong (1841 to Britain, 1997 back to China) and Singapore (1963 from UK, 1965 from Malaysia). But it should be no surprise that these are exceptions: they have few natural resources, and a high population density, meaning that the people were forced to develop their know-how since they couldn't very well live off the land. On the other hand, most colonial 'land-grabs' were for the purposes of owning land and the corresponding resources. There was no need to educate the people, since they basically were enslaved to serve as free labour for the production of goods. When they were allowed to declare their independence, globalization had already had its say: transport of people, goods, and information across great distances was now fairly routine, so they were given no period of 'privacy' to establish what was to be done. For example, Indonesia were able to declare independence from Japan in 1945, but were besieged for the next four years by the British and the Dutch trying to retake control of the archipelago. After this, they had to deal with the fact that most of the industry was ethnically controlled, namely by the Dutch and ethnic Chinese.
Thus, the problem is not that such nations are incapable due to their people, it is rather that history has dealt them a very cruel hand, and they have only emerged with some difficulty from colonial rule during a period when they are being constantly scrutinized by powerful countries with superior military and economic might. Emerging, as it were, with these very same countries still owning the brunt of the economic resources (e.g. the situation as it has played out in Zimbabwe). It is difficult to decide what is to be done in one's own country when no one will leave a people alone to make this decision, and no one will leave a people alone to take stock of THEIR OWN RESOURCES to decide how best to allocate them for THEIR OWN INTERESTS. I already dealt with the other side of this problem in Part I.
So let me get back to the mathematical side of things. Although frustrating, it seems that one cannot but accept that mathematics as a tool to business is, in some sense, a necessity. It is unfathomable why an individual would study Banach algebras over finance if there is little money available in mathematical research and one is likely living like the much of the rest of the population: day-by-day hand-to-mouth.
It is not difficult to see why the educational systems in these countries are poorly conceived of and poorly managed; it is because they have not had any time to themselves since independence: they have been thrown into the deep end of a world that is constantly spinning about them both economically and politically, with their former colonial masters standing at the poolside constantly taunting them and pushing them back into the middle should they get to close to the edge where they might gain some sort of respite from their perpetual treading of water. Continuing the above article:
In light of the continent’s urgent problems, Mohamedbhai thinks that African universities should absent themselves from the race to rise up the rankings and focus their efforts on immediate needs. “Do African universities need to be ranked globally? I don’t think so. Their mission should be to produce the appropriate manpower required for Africa’s development, to undertake research that is of direct relevance to Africa – which may not be acceptable for publication in the best scientific journals – and to reach out to assist the communities in the many challenges they are facing, especially poverty reduction. None of these fits the criteria used for global ranking. African universities have a duty to serve their countries and region first before seeking global glory. The tragedy is that many African governments, blinded by the prestige of global rankings, are challenging their universities to be ranked without understanding the consequences of the grossly inappropriate use of resources that that would entail. At the end of the day, this brings us back to the very purpose of higher education in a country. Not all universities in the world can have the same mission. Priorities are different in different countries, and universities must not be forced to conform to a single model of a world-class university.”
I personally believe that there is a different type of education that Africa (and many countries in Asia) requires: a push towards a much more critical pedagogy that provides its people with an understanding and a genuine belief that it is not them that is the problem; it is rather their colonial wardens that give them no peace that are the problem. They must learn and understand who they are and what is at stake. They must realize that Africa and its people are ontologically no different than anywhere else. That it has the potential for greatness if only enough people see and genuinely believe in this greatness and are willing to come together to enact real change towards a real Africa that is Africa through and through rather than an poor interpretation of Western society.
And, most importantly, they must understand that this change can only come from them.
Teaching mathematics, especially in Africa, is a bit thankless. The foremost reason for this is that, more often than not, no one really cares. People take a course and they say "I cant wait to be done with this. All I need is a pass and then I will never have to take another mathematics course again." And I ask "so why are you in this course then?" And more often than not, the answer is something to the effect of "because I have to"; most of these individuals are in economics or math finance or actuarial or something like this. In other words, mathematics has gone from a search for truth to a means to perpetuate greed. Hurrah!
But there is a reason for this, and it points to a much larger problem. Basically, I think there are two elements at play here. One is that the lack of real conflict in the last century on North American soil has meant that it has been able to maintain a great deal of uniformity in its educational approach, and hence it has been allowed to develop in a way that maintains a certain amount of continuity with much more historical treatments of education, namely in terms of a more meritocratic system of developing ideas, experimentation, discovery, and notions of 'truth'. Because of this, the strong roots that it was allowed to maintain with mathematics in terms of major ideological debates that strike at its very core, such as the one that surrounded the Hilbert program, etc. This has allowed it to able to maintain a certain level of 'ivory tower' status against the recent push for the commodification and corporatization of education. On the other hand, South Africa in particular and Africa in general does not have: a) the historical continuity that allows for this, b) the economic history to that allows it to put 'theory' before 'practice' (since so many people have so little, it is incredibly difficult to conceive of people having time to spend 'contemplating their navels' as it were), and c) the current economic feasibility to try to instill any sort of change in ideology, etc.
But the bigger problem is the state of education in general. A recent article that notes that there are only one or two universities in Africa that feature in the top echelons of university rankings systems provides some insight:
“Africa inherited a higher education system that was a carbon copy of [that of] the powers that colonised it. Right from the beginning, Africa started on a wrong footing – well behind the starting line, so to speak. Despite all the political and economic turmoil it has gone through since independence – often of its own making – it is now expected to compete on a completely non-level playing field. Not only is this unfair, it is also inappropriate,” says Mohamedbhai, who has also served as vice-chancellor of the University of Mauritius. “One could argue that other regions that were also colonised – South Asia, Latin America – are doing reasonably well. However, none of these regions suffered from the sort of exploitation that Africa underwent and continues to experience.”
Latin America cannot be put in this category simply because their colonization occurred centuries before Africa and Asia: they have been able to generate a reasonable amount of uniformity and, moreover, when the Europeans relinquished control of these countries there was still a fairly long period within which they could develop out of the limelight of the 'modern world' that allows for individuals, groups, corporations, etc. to jump from one continent to the next at the drop of a hat. Brazil's independence from Portugal was 'recognized' in 1825, Argentina from Spain in 1816, Chile in 1844, etc. In fact, other than the three 'Guyanas' that were claimed by the British, Dutch, and French respectively, and are largely seen politically as part of the West Indies, only one country achieved full independence after Canada did in 1867. That country was Peru: although it was declared long before in 1821, it was only officially 'recognized' in 1879. Contrast that to Africa where, aside from Egypt which has basically been able to maintain its independence throughout its history because of the very strong historical legacy of Egypt, all countries only emerged from European colonization in the mid-20th century, with Tunisia and Morocco the first to gain independence in 1956, and Ghana the first sub-Saharan country to gain their independence in 1957.
Moreover, South Asian universities also tend to be quite low on the scale, and aside from Thailand, which has maintained its monarchical rule throughout its history, all of these other South Asian nations also emerged from colonial rule only post-WWII. Those countries that have done exceptionally well in Asia, namely Japan, China, and South Korea have largely been spared the Western colonial cosh, though they have had their differences throughout history (i.e. the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and their occupation of the Korea peninsula until the division of Korea occurred post-WWII).
The two exceptions are Hong Kong (1841 to Britain, 1997 back to China) and Singapore (1963 from UK, 1965 from Malaysia). But it should be no surprise that these are exceptions: they have few natural resources, and a high population density, meaning that the people were forced to develop their know-how since they couldn't very well live off the land. On the other hand, most colonial 'land-grabs' were for the purposes of owning land and the corresponding resources. There was no need to educate the people, since they basically were enslaved to serve as free labour for the production of goods. When they were allowed to declare their independence, globalization had already had its say: transport of people, goods, and information across great distances was now fairly routine, so they were given no period of 'privacy' to establish what was to be done. For example, Indonesia were able to declare independence from Japan in 1945, but were besieged for the next four years by the British and the Dutch trying to retake control of the archipelago. After this, they had to deal with the fact that most of the industry was ethnically controlled, namely by the Dutch and ethnic Chinese.
Thus, the problem is not that such nations are incapable due to their people, it is rather that history has dealt them a very cruel hand, and they have only emerged with some difficulty from colonial rule during a period when they are being constantly scrutinized by powerful countries with superior military and economic might. Emerging, as it were, with these very same countries still owning the brunt of the economic resources (e.g. the situation as it has played out in Zimbabwe). It is difficult to decide what is to be done in one's own country when no one will leave a people alone to make this decision, and no one will leave a people alone to take stock of THEIR OWN RESOURCES to decide how best to allocate them for THEIR OWN INTERESTS. I already dealt with the other side of this problem in Part I.
So let me get back to the mathematical side of things. Although frustrating, it seems that one cannot but accept that mathematics as a tool to business is, in some sense, a necessity. It is unfathomable why an individual would study Banach algebras over finance if there is little money available in mathematical research and one is likely living like the much of the rest of the population: day-by-day hand-to-mouth.
It is not difficult to see why the educational systems in these countries are poorly conceived of and poorly managed; it is because they have not had any time to themselves since independence: they have been thrown into the deep end of a world that is constantly spinning about them both economically and politically, with their former colonial masters standing at the poolside constantly taunting them and pushing them back into the middle should they get to close to the edge where they might gain some sort of respite from their perpetual treading of water. Continuing the above article:
In light of the continent’s urgent problems, Mohamedbhai thinks that African universities should absent themselves from the race to rise up the rankings and focus their efforts on immediate needs. “Do African universities need to be ranked globally? I don’t think so. Their mission should be to produce the appropriate manpower required for Africa’s development, to undertake research that is of direct relevance to Africa – which may not be acceptable for publication in the best scientific journals – and to reach out to assist the communities in the many challenges they are facing, especially poverty reduction. None of these fits the criteria used for global ranking. African universities have a duty to serve their countries and region first before seeking global glory. The tragedy is that many African governments, blinded by the prestige of global rankings, are challenging their universities to be ranked without understanding the consequences of the grossly inappropriate use of resources that that would entail. At the end of the day, this brings us back to the very purpose of higher education in a country. Not all universities in the world can have the same mission. Priorities are different in different countries, and universities must not be forced to conform to a single model of a world-class university.”
I personally believe that there is a different type of education that Africa (and many countries in Asia) requires: a push towards a much more critical pedagogy that provides its people with an understanding and a genuine belief that it is not them that is the problem; it is rather their colonial wardens that give them no peace that are the problem. They must learn and understand who they are and what is at stake. They must realize that Africa and its people are ontologically no different than anywhere else. That it has the potential for greatness if only enough people see and genuinely believe in this greatness and are willing to come together to enact real change towards a real Africa that is Africa through and through rather than an poor interpretation of Western society.
And, most importantly, they must understand that this change can only come from them.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Cargo Cults, Causality, Capitalism (and Mathematics) (Interlude of Absurdity)
It was nice to know that the interlocutor from part one was nice enough to email me and tell me that he was 'still waiting for cargo cults part II!'.
I wasn't able to do Part II in a timely fashion as I have been spending a fair bit of time doing other things as a midterm test and subsequent marking clashed with a few articles I had to write and various other things. And I still haven't got there yet, and the interlocutor above may be disappointed because there is something I saw in the news that I felt I needed to comment on and goes nicely with the present topic. It was a BBC article entitled "Obama urges spending cuts and increased taxes on rich". I read this headline and thought, "Nice one buddy!" And then I read the article, and, true to form, the Re-pubic-ans were total dicks about it and fought it tooth and nail: "Primarily, [the Republicans] firmly rejected his proposal to raise additional tax revenue from the wealthy." Surprise!! But let's have a look at it shall we:
"At a time when millions of our countrymen remain unemployed, the president again proposes tax increases on job creators," said Jeb Hensarling of Texas.
A classic capitalist ploy: 'hey, dont make us pay, we're creating jobs here'. Used the world over: "Yeah we're giving elderly Bangladeshi women 10 cents an hour to make Diesel Jeans with their arthritic fingers and selling them for massive profits. But we're 'creating jobs'. We're 'helping these people'. We're 'giving them opportunity'." Really? Have you ever seen Happy Gilmore?
Stiller on the phone: 'This is handmade quality shit here! Alright. Good doing business with you'
Stiller to the elderly: 'Alright people turn up your hearing aids. I've got good news. Arts and crafts time is going to be extended by four hours today.'
Elderly woman: 'My fingers hurt.'
Stiller (feigning concern) 'What was that?'
Elderly woman: 'My fingers hurt.'
Stiller: 'Well now your back's gonna hurt because you just pulled landscaping duty. Anyone else's fingers hurt? I didn't think so.'
Sad but true. Creating 'opportunity', huh? Whose opportunity? Let me guess. If one of those workers say "I can't live off of these terrible wages and work under these terrible conditions", you're going to say "Fine. I'll 'create opportunity' for someone who will"? You people are genocidal maniacs. Oh wait, but this is business as usual, right? Ever notice how during feudalism, BEFORE capitalism really took hold, it was alright for leaders to go around physically killing people, and now with the hegemonic hold that capitalism has on the world, that's 'not alright' (just check the UN's 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'!), but now to economically kill people... well, that's 'just business'. Hey, I think I just realized why they called it 'feudalism'. Oh wait... that's probably just coincidence.
Anyway, to get back to where I was before I went off on that tangent, I wanted to say "Hey Jeb, have you ever thought about WHY millions of your countrymen are unemployed. It couldn't be because these very RICH people you are defending are filthy rich BECAUSE they arent doing their JOB of CREATING JOBS??? Jobs COST MONEY. You have to PAY PEOPLE. When you are NOT PAYING OTHERS, you are able to ACCUMULATE AND HOARD MONEY TO BECOME RICHER." (Of course you know that, you just need an excuse to defend your 'contributors' tooth and nail).
Ok... enough about that, let's move on:
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House budget committee, said: "Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy and anxiety is not hope, it's not change, it's partisanship. We don't need partisanship. We don't need demagoguery. We need solutions."
'Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy and anxiety'?? Who was just talking about 'if we tax the rich, there go all the jobs?' Who was it, for eight years hammered home the idea that those great and ever-present opportunists 'the terrorists' were hiding around every corner, waiting for you to look away for just one second before they would rape and murder you in your bed and eat your children (because of their jealousy for the 'white man's way of life, of course')?? It wasn't BUSH (and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condy and Colin Powell and...) was it??? A REPUBLICAN??? Oh, wait. That wasn't 'fearmongering', that was 'a genuine concern for people's safety', right? I forgot. Yet Gaddafi talking about Al-Qaeda and various foreign powers being behind the rebel force in Eastern libya is obviously 'the talk of a crazy man'? OF COURSE that can't be true!! I mean we all KNOW (see Part I of this article) that Western leaders would NEVER impinge on the sovereignty of other countries for their own gains. Of course, of course. That makes perfect sense. So let's move on.
Led by Mr Ryan, Republicans have offered their own proposal that would go further than Mr Obama's, slashing $6.2 trillion from government spending over the next decade, in large part through cuts to government programmes that serve the elderly and the poor. The proposal would also drastically reduce taxes for wealthy Americans, a move conservatives say would boost economic growth.
Nothing new there. We gotta create jobs, right? I mean, if we dont make billionaires richer than they already are by giving them more money from the poor and unemployed, how else is the poor and unemployed going to get money? Erm... wait a second... Ok, let's just ignore the circular logic, shall we? It may look like we are sodomizing the poor and weak to the point where their pants no longer jingle during the thrusts because there's nothing there to jingle, and they can no longer walk straight, but we all know THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE!!! JOBS, MAN!!! WAGE LABOUR, MAN!!! THAT'S THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS, MAN!!! YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, MAN!!! [continue "rich white man smoke and mirrors" rhetoric here]. But Obama continues by putting it all into perspective:
"They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."
Right on, Barack!! That's the nail on the head!! Crystal clear!! And clearly in a 'democracy', where the poor greatly outnumber the rich, such a plan will pass easily, right? Well not if Eric Massa's interview with Glenn 'Nazi Moron' Beck (or... history for that matter) is anything to go by, where he revealed that his job as a politician had a strange resemblance to that of a telemarketer: he spend most of his time on the phone trying to convince rich people and corporations to give the government money. He was even coached on who to call when, and how to talk to them. From my experience, telemarketing is a dead-end job that pays low wages and has a massive turnover of employees. It's nice to know that by re-categorizing them as 'politicians', all those negative aspects of such a job go away.
So let's consider one of two plausible scenarios:
Rich man on phone: 'Hey buddy, if you pass this bill and my net worth starts to go down, you arent getting ANY money from me, my empire will boycott anything that you stand for, and my media friends will drag your name through the mud the world over.'
OR
Rich man on phone: 'Hey buddy, if you vote against this bill, I'll push up your funding 'substantially', I will try to convince people to back your rallies, and my media friends will put your name in lights on the front page (or, at least, on page 3) whenever you do 'a good' and will defend you tooth and nail whenever you 'mess up' or there is a 'misunderstanding' no matter how much of a bonehead you might be.'
I mean, who WOULDN'T reply "sorry man, I was elected by 'the people', and this is best for 'the people'... do what you must..." I mean, this is a democracy, right? And they must be the 'best democracy in the world' if they are going to be 'spreading democracy' right?
And only NOW do I realize WHY my term of 'cargo cults' to describe those in other countries waiting for the Manichean avengers of the US and others to come in and make everything OK by spreading 'freedom' and 'democracy' to them was misguided. I mean, all they want is a little democracy. All they want is to say "Please stop these feudal tyrants from forcing us to our knees through their autocratic rule. Being on our knees is not enough... we would prefer instead that you bring your economic tyrants to help us give away what little money we have so that our faces can well and truly be down in the mud, as we want not only our dignity but our economic well-being as well to be completely in tatters."
Life is all about being 'happy', right? And whether that happiness comes from surrounding yourself with genuinely good things or it comes from the bliss that ignorance gives you, its still happiness, right? That's why I love cargo cults: because ignorance is bliss.
And the denouement:
So what becomes of the politicians? Aren't they supposed to be serving the people? Isn't that their job. Not really. Remember 'Williams', from Enter the Dragon:
Han: Your style is unorthodox.
Williams: But effective.
Han: It's not the art but the combat you enjoy.
Williams: The winning.
I think that just about sums up the ideals of politicians. But let's just remember Han's reply:
"We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for."
[And what does Williams say? "When it comes, I won't even notice. I'll be too busy looking good."
...That's probably a fairly accurate depiction of a very common attitude as well...]
I wasn't able to do Part II in a timely fashion as I have been spending a fair bit of time doing other things as a midterm test and subsequent marking clashed with a few articles I had to write and various other things. And I still haven't got there yet, and the interlocutor above may be disappointed because there is something I saw in the news that I felt I needed to comment on and goes nicely with the present topic. It was a BBC article entitled "Obama urges spending cuts and increased taxes on rich". I read this headline and thought, "Nice one buddy!" And then I read the article, and, true to form, the Re-pubic-ans were total dicks about it and fought it tooth and nail: "Primarily, [the Republicans] firmly rejected his proposal to raise additional tax revenue from the wealthy." Surprise!! But let's have a look at it shall we:
"At a time when millions of our countrymen remain unemployed, the president again proposes tax increases on job creators," said Jeb Hensarling of Texas.
A classic capitalist ploy: 'hey, dont make us pay, we're creating jobs here'. Used the world over: "Yeah we're giving elderly Bangladeshi women 10 cents an hour to make Diesel Jeans with their arthritic fingers and selling them for massive profits. But we're 'creating jobs'. We're 'helping these people'. We're 'giving them opportunity'." Really? Have you ever seen Happy Gilmore?
Stiller on the phone: 'This is handmade quality shit here! Alright. Good doing business with you'
Stiller to the elderly: 'Alright people turn up your hearing aids. I've got good news. Arts and crafts time is going to be extended by four hours today.'
Elderly woman: 'My fingers hurt.'
Stiller (feigning concern) 'What was that?'
Elderly woman: 'My fingers hurt.'
Stiller: 'Well now your back's gonna hurt because you just pulled landscaping duty. Anyone else's fingers hurt? I didn't think so.'
Sad but true. Creating 'opportunity', huh? Whose opportunity? Let me guess. If one of those workers say "I can't live off of these terrible wages and work under these terrible conditions", you're going to say "Fine. I'll 'create opportunity' for someone who will"? You people are genocidal maniacs. Oh wait, but this is business as usual, right? Ever notice how during feudalism, BEFORE capitalism really took hold, it was alright for leaders to go around physically killing people, and now with the hegemonic hold that capitalism has on the world, that's 'not alright' (just check the UN's 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'!), but now to economically kill people... well, that's 'just business'. Hey, I think I just realized why they called it 'feudalism'. Oh wait... that's probably just coincidence.
Anyway, to get back to where I was before I went off on that tangent, I wanted to say "Hey Jeb, have you ever thought about WHY millions of your countrymen are unemployed. It couldn't be because these very RICH people you are defending are filthy rich BECAUSE they arent doing their JOB of CREATING JOBS??? Jobs COST MONEY. You have to PAY PEOPLE. When you are NOT PAYING OTHERS, you are able to ACCUMULATE AND HOARD MONEY TO BECOME RICHER." (Of course you know that, you just need an excuse to defend your 'contributors' tooth and nail).
Ok... enough about that, let's move on:
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House budget committee, said: "Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy and anxiety is not hope, it's not change, it's partisanship. We don't need partisanship. We don't need demagoguery. We need solutions."
'Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy and anxiety'?? Who was just talking about 'if we tax the rich, there go all the jobs?' Who was it, for eight years hammered home the idea that those great and ever-present opportunists 'the terrorists' were hiding around every corner, waiting for you to look away for just one second before they would rape and murder you in your bed and eat your children (because of their jealousy for the 'white man's way of life, of course')?? It wasn't BUSH (and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condy and Colin Powell and...) was it??? A REPUBLICAN??? Oh, wait. That wasn't 'fearmongering', that was 'a genuine concern for people's safety', right? I forgot. Yet Gaddafi talking about Al-Qaeda and various foreign powers being behind the rebel force in Eastern libya is obviously 'the talk of a crazy man'? OF COURSE that can't be true!! I mean we all KNOW (see Part I of this article) that Western leaders would NEVER impinge on the sovereignty of other countries for their own gains. Of course, of course. That makes perfect sense. So let's move on.
Led by Mr Ryan, Republicans have offered their own proposal that would go further than Mr Obama's, slashing $6.2 trillion from government spending over the next decade, in large part through cuts to government programmes that serve the elderly and the poor. The proposal would also drastically reduce taxes for wealthy Americans, a move conservatives say would boost economic growth.
Nothing new there. We gotta create jobs, right? I mean, if we dont make billionaires richer than they already are by giving them more money from the poor and unemployed, how else is the poor and unemployed going to get money? Erm... wait a second... Ok, let's just ignore the circular logic, shall we? It may look like we are sodomizing the poor and weak to the point where their pants no longer jingle during the thrusts because there's nothing there to jingle, and they can no longer walk straight, but we all know THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE!!! JOBS, MAN!!! WAGE LABOUR, MAN!!! THAT'S THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS, MAN!!! YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, MAN!!! [continue "rich white man smoke and mirrors" rhetoric here]. But Obama continues by putting it all into perspective:
"They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."
Right on, Barack!! That's the nail on the head!! Crystal clear!! And clearly in a 'democracy', where the poor greatly outnumber the rich, such a plan will pass easily, right? Well not if Eric Massa's interview with Glenn 'Nazi Moron' Beck (or... history for that matter) is anything to go by, where he revealed that his job as a politician had a strange resemblance to that of a telemarketer: he spend most of his time on the phone trying to convince rich people and corporations to give the government money. He was even coached on who to call when, and how to talk to them. From my experience, telemarketing is a dead-end job that pays low wages and has a massive turnover of employees. It's nice to know that by re-categorizing them as 'politicians', all those negative aspects of such a job go away.
So let's consider one of two plausible scenarios:
Rich man on phone: 'Hey buddy, if you pass this bill and my net worth starts to go down, you arent getting ANY money from me, my empire will boycott anything that you stand for, and my media friends will drag your name through the mud the world over.'
OR
Rich man on phone: 'Hey buddy, if you vote against this bill, I'll push up your funding 'substantially', I will try to convince people to back your rallies, and my media friends will put your name in lights on the front page (or, at least, on page 3) whenever you do 'a good' and will defend you tooth and nail whenever you 'mess up' or there is a 'misunderstanding' no matter how much of a bonehead you might be.'
I mean, who WOULDN'T reply "sorry man, I was elected by 'the people', and this is best for 'the people'... do what you must..." I mean, this is a democracy, right? And they must be the 'best democracy in the world' if they are going to be 'spreading democracy' right?
And only NOW do I realize WHY my term of 'cargo cults' to describe those in other countries waiting for the Manichean avengers of the US and others to come in and make everything OK by spreading 'freedom' and 'democracy' to them was misguided. I mean, all they want is a little democracy. All they want is to say "Please stop these feudal tyrants from forcing us to our knees through their autocratic rule. Being on our knees is not enough... we would prefer instead that you bring your economic tyrants to help us give away what little money we have so that our faces can well and truly be down in the mud, as we want not only our dignity but our economic well-being as well to be completely in tatters."
Life is all about being 'happy', right? And whether that happiness comes from surrounding yourself with genuinely good things or it comes from the bliss that ignorance gives you, its still happiness, right? That's why I love cargo cults: because ignorance is bliss.
And the denouement:
So what becomes of the politicians? Aren't they supposed to be serving the people? Isn't that their job. Not really. Remember 'Williams', from Enter the Dragon:
Han: Your style is unorthodox.
Williams: But effective.
Han: It's not the art but the combat you enjoy.
Williams: The winning.
I think that just about sums up the ideals of politicians. But let's just remember Han's reply:
"We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for."
[And what does Williams say? "When it comes, I won't even notice. I'll be too busy looking good."
...That's probably a fairly accurate depiction of a very common attitude as well...]
Monday, April 11, 2011
Cargo Cults, Causality, Capitalism (and Mathematics) (Part I)
It is interesting how the strangest discussions can produce some of the most amazing moments of clarity and insight.
I will always remember the local bus ride from Bhubaneswar to Puri, not so much because of the scenery (which was quite amazing!), but because of the subject matter of the conversation. I was sitting with my traveling cohort in the bus, trying to think of something to pass the time. So I turned to him and asked him 'What do you think the strangest possible name for a city could be?' We threw around a few names and had a few laughs, and then he mentioned one name that I cannot repeat here because the title was so ironic and hilarious in so many ways, that it quickly went from a discussion about random names to analyzing this odd phrase. And from that phrase grew an idea for a novel that could be used as an allegory to produce a rather damning critique of the practices of the rich global elite. As the plot got more and more absurd the more 'accurate' the metaphor was, my friend mentioned that he wanted some place in it for some sort of cargo cult (as he thought that this would be a rather hilariously naive sequence of events to add). At the time, it seemed a bit daunting to know how to fit it all in (and he soon put me in sole charge of any sort of novel that might come of it, so I tried to develop the idea and still believe it can and should be written once I get the time to do so, hence why I would rather not reveal the phrase in question).
But recently I was reminded of this with regard to the situation in Libya and Africa in general. I started using the term 'cargo cult' to describe a lot of American foreign policy because by looking through history, it seems that in the post-WWII era almost every coup, coup attempt, or other such means to usurp power in the third world has some connection to the United States (and, it seems, the World Bank and IMF are not far behind) either as supporting it or helping to defeat it: Chile, Brazil, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Iraq, Iran, the list goes on.
And in the aftermath of these we see the hypocrisy surrounding American claims for 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'overthrowing of dictators'. Few Chileans, for example, will forget the brutality of Pinochet, few Congolese will forget the personality cult and autocracy of Mobutu, few Egyptians will forget the exploitation by Mubarak. And of course, there is the perpetual eye-sore of Vietnam: when I was in HCMC/Saigon, I did the rounds in the Vietnam War Museum and literally left in tears. Of course, the term cargo cult refers to the ill-conceived beliefs of various tribes of Pacific Islanders throughout history believing that foreign explorers were spirits, etc., but it is also idiomatically used (in the words of wikipedia) "to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance". In other words, for some reason (well... not 'some reason', but mostly due to the overinflated Western media spreading its hegemonic pro-capitalist message) too often people see the United States as some sort of unbiased saviour and morally righteous actor in a Manichean interpretation of the global world. If only they would learn a bit of history.
Anyway, where philosophy really kicks in here is the fact that what underlines cargo cults is an egregious logical flaw: P implies Q is obviously not logically equivalent to Q implies P, and moreover, the association of two events does not necessarily imply logical dependence. So we have that explorers come and bring strange goods to the islands, but that doesnt imply that strange goods on an island implies explorers came (as in, instead of making religious sacrifices, these goods could be scientifically assessed to try to recreate them without 'foreign intervention'), nor does it mean that a certain religious ceremony being performed on the day that said explorers arrive implies that the perpetuation of said ceremony will imply that said explorers will arrive again. The same ideas can be applied to American foreign policy: even if American foreign policy produces 'change' (irrespective of one's assessment of the qualities of said change), this does not mean that some sort of change requires the intervention of a Western power. Moreover, 'change' and 'good' are not always synonymous, and history shows that there are many 'changes' that the US has brought about that really aren't so 'good'.
For example, it is clear from the difference I see in the manner in which some/many South Africans conduct themselves socially versus the ease in which other Africans conduct themselves socially that the apartheid history has had a major effect on South Africa. A brief look into the books of history shows that the Soweto uprisings in 1976 should have spelled the beginning of the end for apartheid in South Africa. By December of 1980, the Carter administration had almost convinced Botha, the leader of the apartheid government, to grant Namibia its independence, and this would likely have had a domino effect on political policies in South Africa in general. A month later, Botha suddenly made an about turn. The reason? Reagan became president and threw his weight behind Botha's racist regime in order to have a staunchly anti-communist ally to undermine socialism in southern Africa and possible give Reagan an upper hand in the Cold War: cue a lengthy civil war in Angola, and a perpetuation of apartheid in South Africa for a further ten years. And, of course, cue the 'sacrifices' for the sake of perpetuating American self-interest. Interestingly, a main reason for Botha relinquishing control of the ruling party was because of a heart attack he experienced two days before Reagan's second term ended. He expected an individual that backed his apartheid approach would come into power, but he guessed wrong and De Klerk gained control of the National Party, the catalyst for the end of apartheid. Although Botha bitterly maintained his hold on the presidency for a further six months, he relinquished control in protest when he realized that he no longer had any power.
If one agrees that the perpetuation of apartheid in South Africa was not 'a good', but one doubts the role that the US played, they can read various letters between Reagan and Botha that are available in the public domain. Reagan's response to Botha includes an opinion that criticisms of South African policy (i.e. apartheid) are “over-simplified or distorted notions and frequently from sources that have little to brag about themselves,” maintaining it was “all the more imperative that pro-democratic blacks join – and be seen to join – [Botha] in building a new South Africa.” On the other hand, he offers the following 'political support': “it will be possible for my administration, our business community and key allies of the United States to play a more constructive role” in backing the South African apartheid government. Of course, this was dependent on various 'conditions' being met, including support for Angolan free-marketer Jonas Savimbi (which resulted in South Africa invading Angola and contributing to a decade-long civil war) in order to "erode Soviet political influence over Angola", and a commitment to the Nkomati Accord, which basically monitored and put pressure on socialist moves in Mozambique and, indirectly, in neighbouring Zimbabwe.
If one STILL does not agree, that individual should note that the passing of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act passed in 1986 by the US administration, which really turned the thumbscrews on the Botha government by isolating South Africa economically, was vetoed by Reagan. It is the only instance in the 20th century when a presidential veto on foreign policy was overturned by the necessary two-thirds majority in Congress.
ANYWAY, after I thought about it in this way, I realized that perhaps a cargo cult really is needed in that novel... if I ever get around to writing it.
Tune in later (maybe tomorrow if I get around to it) for Part II, which, I promise, will include some talk of mathematics (YAY!) and will not include tirades that 'vilify' those involved in enacting and carrying out the policies of Team America World Police.
I will always remember the local bus ride from Bhubaneswar to Puri, not so much because of the scenery (which was quite amazing!), but because of the subject matter of the conversation. I was sitting with my traveling cohort in the bus, trying to think of something to pass the time. So I turned to him and asked him 'What do you think the strangest possible name for a city could be?' We threw around a few names and had a few laughs, and then he mentioned one name that I cannot repeat here because the title was so ironic and hilarious in so many ways, that it quickly went from a discussion about random names to analyzing this odd phrase. And from that phrase grew an idea for a novel that could be used as an allegory to produce a rather damning critique of the practices of the rich global elite. As the plot got more and more absurd the more 'accurate' the metaphor was, my friend mentioned that he wanted some place in it for some sort of cargo cult (as he thought that this would be a rather hilariously naive sequence of events to add). At the time, it seemed a bit daunting to know how to fit it all in (and he soon put me in sole charge of any sort of novel that might come of it, so I tried to develop the idea and still believe it can and should be written once I get the time to do so, hence why I would rather not reveal the phrase in question).
But recently I was reminded of this with regard to the situation in Libya and Africa in general. I started using the term 'cargo cult' to describe a lot of American foreign policy because by looking through history, it seems that in the post-WWII era almost every coup, coup attempt, or other such means to usurp power in the third world has some connection to the United States (and, it seems, the World Bank and IMF are not far behind) either as supporting it or helping to defeat it: Chile, Brazil, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Iraq, Iran, the list goes on.
And in the aftermath of these we see the hypocrisy surrounding American claims for 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'overthrowing of dictators'. Few Chileans, for example, will forget the brutality of Pinochet, few Congolese will forget the personality cult and autocracy of Mobutu, few Egyptians will forget the exploitation by Mubarak. And of course, there is the perpetual eye-sore of Vietnam: when I was in HCMC/Saigon, I did the rounds in the Vietnam War Museum and literally left in tears. Of course, the term cargo cult refers to the ill-conceived beliefs of various tribes of Pacific Islanders throughout history believing that foreign explorers were spirits, etc., but it is also idiomatically used (in the words of wikipedia) "to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance". In other words, for some reason (well... not 'some reason', but mostly due to the overinflated Western media spreading its hegemonic pro-capitalist message) too often people see the United States as some sort of unbiased saviour and morally righteous actor in a Manichean interpretation of the global world. If only they would learn a bit of history.
Anyway, where philosophy really kicks in here is the fact that what underlines cargo cults is an egregious logical flaw: P implies Q is obviously not logically equivalent to Q implies P, and moreover, the association of two events does not necessarily imply logical dependence. So we have that explorers come and bring strange goods to the islands, but that doesnt imply that strange goods on an island implies explorers came (as in, instead of making religious sacrifices, these goods could be scientifically assessed to try to recreate them without 'foreign intervention'), nor does it mean that a certain religious ceremony being performed on the day that said explorers arrive implies that the perpetuation of said ceremony will imply that said explorers will arrive again. The same ideas can be applied to American foreign policy: even if American foreign policy produces 'change' (irrespective of one's assessment of the qualities of said change), this does not mean that some sort of change requires the intervention of a Western power. Moreover, 'change' and 'good' are not always synonymous, and history shows that there are many 'changes' that the US has brought about that really aren't so 'good'.
For example, it is clear from the difference I see in the manner in which some/many South Africans conduct themselves socially versus the ease in which other Africans conduct themselves socially that the apartheid history has had a major effect on South Africa. A brief look into the books of history shows that the Soweto uprisings in 1976 should have spelled the beginning of the end for apartheid in South Africa. By December of 1980, the Carter administration had almost convinced Botha, the leader of the apartheid government, to grant Namibia its independence, and this would likely have had a domino effect on political policies in South Africa in general. A month later, Botha suddenly made an about turn. The reason? Reagan became president and threw his weight behind Botha's racist regime in order to have a staunchly anti-communist ally to undermine socialism in southern Africa and possible give Reagan an upper hand in the Cold War: cue a lengthy civil war in Angola, and a perpetuation of apartheid in South Africa for a further ten years. And, of course, cue the 'sacrifices' for the sake of perpetuating American self-interest. Interestingly, a main reason for Botha relinquishing control of the ruling party was because of a heart attack he experienced two days before Reagan's second term ended. He expected an individual that backed his apartheid approach would come into power, but he guessed wrong and De Klerk gained control of the National Party, the catalyst for the end of apartheid. Although Botha bitterly maintained his hold on the presidency for a further six months, he relinquished control in protest when he realized that he no longer had any power.
If one agrees that the perpetuation of apartheid in South Africa was not 'a good', but one doubts the role that the US played, they can read various letters between Reagan and Botha that are available in the public domain. Reagan's response to Botha includes an opinion that criticisms of South African policy (i.e. apartheid) are “over-simplified or distorted notions and frequently from sources that have little to brag about themselves,” maintaining it was “all the more imperative that pro-democratic blacks join – and be seen to join – [Botha] in building a new South Africa.” On the other hand, he offers the following 'political support': “it will be possible for my administration, our business community and key allies of the United States to play a more constructive role” in backing the South African apartheid government. Of course, this was dependent on various 'conditions' being met, including support for Angolan free-marketer Jonas Savimbi (which resulted in South Africa invading Angola and contributing to a decade-long civil war) in order to "erode Soviet political influence over Angola", and a commitment to the Nkomati Accord, which basically monitored and put pressure on socialist moves in Mozambique and, indirectly, in neighbouring Zimbabwe.
If one STILL does not agree, that individual should note that the passing of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act passed in 1986 by the US administration, which really turned the thumbscrews on the Botha government by isolating South Africa economically, was vetoed by Reagan. It is the only instance in the 20th century when a presidential veto on foreign policy was overturned by the necessary two-thirds majority in Congress.
ANYWAY, after I thought about it in this way, I realized that perhaps a cargo cult really is needed in that novel... if I ever get around to writing it.
Tune in later (maybe tomorrow if I get around to it) for Part II, which, I promise, will include some talk of mathematics (YAY!) and will not include tirades that 'vilify' those involved in enacting and carrying out the policies of Team America World Police.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
'Life is so hard, mah man'
I used to really enjoy going to Western Europe. The history is interesting, the architecture so beautiful, there is a more social and less xenophobic feeling in the air because of the manner in which it seems to be able to integrate itself through public transport and public spaces being so common and so well populated.
On my way to South Africa last year, I took 10 days in Europe en route, a few days in Copenhagen, and then a week to troll a bit around southern Europe before I flew to Joburg from Malpensa airport just outside of Milan. But despite all the interestingly colourful architecture, the 'openness' of staying by the water and having canals run underfoot, and of course the beautiful young Danish women in their summer dresses riding down the streets of Copenhagen on their bicycles, something felt wrong. It was different than before. True, I still had to finish my thesis revisions before my re-submission and I was a bit pressed for time, and I also was about to step into the unknown in terms of committing to a year in South Africa, a country I had heard so many horror stories about in terms of personal safety, but it was much more than that. For the first time, I really started to look at the people... search their faces... observe their mannerisms... and for the first time, I didnt understand.
My time in Asia the winter before had had a major effect on me it seemed. Here was a world that was so strange and foreign to me, but I had had a number of interesting experiences where, despite the language barrier in a Chinese village and a Vietnamese town, I was made to feel like I belonged; I was included in various things that happened to be shared by the community at the time. And now searching all these faces in Denmark, there seemed to be an emptiness about it.
Of course, I am a bit of an elitist because I can survive comfortably in the developing world and I dont know what its REALLY like to be oppressed and impoverished, but one of the main things that I realized is that I travel to engage with people, because people are the most interesting and unpredictable beings in the world. I realized that my boredom in North America stems from the predictably of it all. Most people take life for granted because they dont have to be challenged, they dont really know or care whats going on outside of their immediate social circle because they dont have to. There is the implicit understanding that despite their not having as large a house and as many cars as the next person, they will survive. Or maybe it just doesnt occur to them to critically engage with reality should their bubble be effectively burst.
South Africa, in particular, I really really love. When I first arrived, I was a bit paranoid because of what I had heard about this unknown country. But when I arrived back from India, I just said 'fuck it' and stepped boldly out into the unknown, which provided me with interesting experiences aplenty. But the main thing is that I have a public place where I can constantly engage with people. True, it gets a bit boring now and again, but what doesnt? The main point is that I would very rarely go 'clubbing' or 'partying' back in Canada because I already knew what it was about: expensive beers, pointless conversations, 'dancing', some people trying to hook up, others trying to start fights... in general it too often seemed to be a pointless exercise. But here I go out most nights. One is because the beer is ridiculously cheap (750ml for R13 ~ $1.80), but the other is that its a 'black bar', meaning that ex-pats looking for opportunity in Cape Town come together with backgrounds from all around Africa, and they always have interesting things to say about their own countries and what's going on, but they also understand and are interested in discussing the situation in general. It is because they are in a position where if they begin to take life for granted, if they stop being vigilant, then their situation will become precarious.
One of, if not the, closest friend I have at the moment is one of my roommates, 'Rasta'. He's from Tanzania, looking to make ends meet in Cape Town. He does leatherworking at a kiosk in the area, making belts, handbags, sandals, etc., fixing shoes, etc. But whenever I talk with him, whether it be in the evening over a toke or in the morning after starting the day, I can see the strain on his face, and he often begins with a sigh and the utterance 'Life is so hard, mah man.' Ive known him for a fair bit of time, and we often end up discussing similar things. He tells me 'it's not hard if you have a bit of capital, because then all you gotta do is be creative'. He tells me about how he wants to meet a beautiful girl, but not yet because he doesnt want to bring a child into the world while he's in his financially tough situation. He tells me about how much he misses Tanzania, but that he can see how South Africa is slowly turning into Tanzania, and its becoming more and more difficult to survive. He tells me 'the government, they dont tell about the real situation, the people on the streets, you only really understand when you have to go hungry and you dont know where your next meal is going to come from'. He tells about how tired he is because he has to wake up every morning, haul out and set up the kiosk that sits in storage overnight about half a block from where he sets up his shop. He tells me about how much he wants to go back to finish school if he can put some money together, but he's 28 and isnt sure when or if he can make ends meet. But in the end, he reiterates 'Life is so hard, mah man'.
When I first went to Asia, I had real sympathy for people and wanted to help them out, but after being in Cambodia, where there are people constantly haranguing on you because civil war and vast economic inequality has made a lot of people desperate, I realized then and there and said to myself 'you cant save everybody, especially with the little money you have'. But there are sometimes when I must help. When I stayed in Chamanculo, the individual there that I went to visit turned to me one day and asked 'can you help my family put a proper roof on the house?' and I said 'ok.' I didnt know it would cost 5000 meticais (about $130) and this perturbed me a little as it started with a bit of money here and there and slowly escalated, but at the end of the day, despite my frustration, I was happy to help: by depriving myself of few extra luxuries here and there, I was able to provide something sustainable for a family living in abject poverty. And anyway, they allowed me to stay at the place for free, so I suppose it was the least I could do.
And then there is Rasta. There are many times when we go to the pub to hang out or play pool or whatever, but despite his upbeat approach to the world, I can always see that behind it all, there is a battle going on, a battle to survive. Now and again I give him R100 'to buy ganja', because I smoke with him plenty, I needed a belt, so I went down to his shop and had him make one for me. He said it was R150, but I gave him R200 and said 'keep the rest for smokes'. He told me about how sore he was from having to set up and take down every day, so I told him to wake me tomorrow and I'll walk up with him and help him set up. Why not? I think about maybe in a few years when Im living in Dar es Salaam or Accra or Bombay or Manila or Canada or who knows where, I can contact him, bring him to where I'm living and just let him take it easy for a bit and enjoy life.
It is true. I can't save everyone. But sometimes, in certain situations, I feel that I must do something...
On my way to South Africa last year, I took 10 days in Europe en route, a few days in Copenhagen, and then a week to troll a bit around southern Europe before I flew to Joburg from Malpensa airport just outside of Milan. But despite all the interestingly colourful architecture, the 'openness' of staying by the water and having canals run underfoot, and of course the beautiful young Danish women in their summer dresses riding down the streets of Copenhagen on their bicycles, something felt wrong. It was different than before. True, I still had to finish my thesis revisions before my re-submission and I was a bit pressed for time, and I also was about to step into the unknown in terms of committing to a year in South Africa, a country I had heard so many horror stories about in terms of personal safety, but it was much more than that. For the first time, I really started to look at the people... search their faces... observe their mannerisms... and for the first time, I didnt understand.
My time in Asia the winter before had had a major effect on me it seemed. Here was a world that was so strange and foreign to me, but I had had a number of interesting experiences where, despite the language barrier in a Chinese village and a Vietnamese town, I was made to feel like I belonged; I was included in various things that happened to be shared by the community at the time. And now searching all these faces in Denmark, there seemed to be an emptiness about it.
Of course, I am a bit of an elitist because I can survive comfortably in the developing world and I dont know what its REALLY like to be oppressed and impoverished, but one of the main things that I realized is that I travel to engage with people, because people are the most interesting and unpredictable beings in the world. I realized that my boredom in North America stems from the predictably of it all. Most people take life for granted because they dont have to be challenged, they dont really know or care whats going on outside of their immediate social circle because they dont have to. There is the implicit understanding that despite their not having as large a house and as many cars as the next person, they will survive. Or maybe it just doesnt occur to them to critically engage with reality should their bubble be effectively burst.
South Africa, in particular, I really really love. When I first arrived, I was a bit paranoid because of what I had heard about this unknown country. But when I arrived back from India, I just said 'fuck it' and stepped boldly out into the unknown, which provided me with interesting experiences aplenty. But the main thing is that I have a public place where I can constantly engage with people. True, it gets a bit boring now and again, but what doesnt? The main point is that I would very rarely go 'clubbing' or 'partying' back in Canada because I already knew what it was about: expensive beers, pointless conversations, 'dancing', some people trying to hook up, others trying to start fights... in general it too often seemed to be a pointless exercise. But here I go out most nights. One is because the beer is ridiculously cheap (750ml for R13 ~ $1.80), but the other is that its a 'black bar', meaning that ex-pats looking for opportunity in Cape Town come together with backgrounds from all around Africa, and they always have interesting things to say about their own countries and what's going on, but they also understand and are interested in discussing the situation in general. It is because they are in a position where if they begin to take life for granted, if they stop being vigilant, then their situation will become precarious.
One of, if not the, closest friend I have at the moment is one of my roommates, 'Rasta'. He's from Tanzania, looking to make ends meet in Cape Town. He does leatherworking at a kiosk in the area, making belts, handbags, sandals, etc., fixing shoes, etc. But whenever I talk with him, whether it be in the evening over a toke or in the morning after starting the day, I can see the strain on his face, and he often begins with a sigh and the utterance 'Life is so hard, mah man.' Ive known him for a fair bit of time, and we often end up discussing similar things. He tells me 'it's not hard if you have a bit of capital, because then all you gotta do is be creative'. He tells me about how he wants to meet a beautiful girl, but not yet because he doesnt want to bring a child into the world while he's in his financially tough situation. He tells me about how much he misses Tanzania, but that he can see how South Africa is slowly turning into Tanzania, and its becoming more and more difficult to survive. He tells me 'the government, they dont tell about the real situation, the people on the streets, you only really understand when you have to go hungry and you dont know where your next meal is going to come from'. He tells about how tired he is because he has to wake up every morning, haul out and set up the kiosk that sits in storage overnight about half a block from where he sets up his shop. He tells me about how much he wants to go back to finish school if he can put some money together, but he's 28 and isnt sure when or if he can make ends meet. But in the end, he reiterates 'Life is so hard, mah man'.
When I first went to Asia, I had real sympathy for people and wanted to help them out, but after being in Cambodia, where there are people constantly haranguing on you because civil war and vast economic inequality has made a lot of people desperate, I realized then and there and said to myself 'you cant save everybody, especially with the little money you have'. But there are sometimes when I must help. When I stayed in Chamanculo, the individual there that I went to visit turned to me one day and asked 'can you help my family put a proper roof on the house?' and I said 'ok.' I didnt know it would cost 5000 meticais (about $130) and this perturbed me a little as it started with a bit of money here and there and slowly escalated, but at the end of the day, despite my frustration, I was happy to help: by depriving myself of few extra luxuries here and there, I was able to provide something sustainable for a family living in abject poverty. And anyway, they allowed me to stay at the place for free, so I suppose it was the least I could do.
And then there is Rasta. There are many times when we go to the pub to hang out or play pool or whatever, but despite his upbeat approach to the world, I can always see that behind it all, there is a battle going on, a battle to survive. Now and again I give him R100 'to buy ganja', because I smoke with him plenty, I needed a belt, so I went down to his shop and had him make one for me. He said it was R150, but I gave him R200 and said 'keep the rest for smokes'. He told me about how sore he was from having to set up and take down every day, so I told him to wake me tomorrow and I'll walk up with him and help him set up. Why not? I think about maybe in a few years when Im living in Dar es Salaam or Accra or Bombay or Manila or Canada or who knows where, I can contact him, bring him to where I'm living and just let him take it easy for a bit and enjoy life.
It is true. I can't save everyone. But sometimes, in certain situations, I feel that I must do something...
Saturday, April 9, 2011
"... and Philosophy"
I suppose that is one way to make philosophy 'fashionable'; present it within the context of whatever is in vogue at the time and hope that people purchase the over-priced books you are attempting to use to exploit a niche market. Good job. I've seen 'The Simpsons and Philosophy', 'Fight Club and Philosophy', and a bunch of others that I can't remember. I'm sure they probably have 'WWE and Philosophy' and 'MMA and Philosophy' by now. But let me put this into context. I wish to speak about 'Beavis & Butthead and Philosophy'. Strange? Probably. How is it that two cartoon morons who couldnt think their way out of a wet paper bag would have some way to contribute to the 'pure thought' of philosophy?
Well let me begin with an event that occurred yesterday. I was sitting in Debonairs (it's a pizza company in South Africa) waiting for the pizza that I had ordered to fill the hole that had cropped up during my day of not eating much. While I had been walking down the hill from UCT towards Debonairs, I had heard some singing going on across the street, but I didnt think much of it; I have seen various popular street bands and buskers during my time here. And then there are the pairs of people on the trains: someone who is blind or has some visible justification for sympathy is led through the traincars by an escort. They then sing about the salvation they are going to receive when they get to heaven, and the salvation that Christ will give them, all the while keeping the beat by shaking the cup full of coins they are using to collect donations like a makeshift tambourine. Ive heard rumours that people are exploiting this: 'renting' these blind people, seniors, babies, and whomever else to try to exploit people's sympathy, and in the end giving the individuals that they rent little or nothing.
But anyway, back to my original point: singers, not so strange a thing to conceive of, even when its dark out. So while I was waiting for my pizza, these same singers came to the door of Debonair's and started belting out their song. At first I took the ascetic look and the robes to imply that they were Buddhists. But then I listened to the chant of 'Hare Hare Krishna Krishna' that had become so familiar to me whilst I was traveling throughout India, noticed that a few of them were sporting Bindi dots, and then it became clear where they were coming from.
So what does this have to do with Beavis & Butthead?
Well I recall one episode, I think it was called 'Balloon'. At the beginning of the episode, they see a plea from someone to stop people being irresponsible with their helium balloons because they drift out to sea, fall into the water, and are choked on by dolphins. So what happens? Our two heroes think 'hey, let's bring some helium balloons to the local aquarium, break them over the pool, and choke these poor aquatic lifeforms... "that would be cool" [of course]'. After the outtakes where they get high on the helium, etc., they go to the aquarium, and they are holding onto the balloons, but then Beavis hands over something that makes him too light to hold the balloons down, so they carry him up over the pool. Butthead takes aim with the slingshot, hits Beavis 'in the nads' causing him to let go of the balloons and fall into the pool. At that moment, 'its hammer time' and a bunch of hammerhead sharks come into the pool. But they are quickly escorted back because there is some sort of 'pollution' being detected in the water. Beavis has had a pee in the pool.
So what?
Well at the end of it all, Butthead asks Beavis 'did you pee in the pool because you were smart, or because you were scared?' And Beavis replies 'because it felt good.'
While I was watching these singers outside of Debonairs, this very idea occurred to me, because a few of the singers were westerners who had taken up the cause of Hare Krishna. One of the individuals in question was a guy that would fall entirely within the bounds of token geek/dork/nerd/loser: awkward face, huge glasses, etc. He had shaved his head except for a ponytail at the back and was belting away along with the rest of the group. So I thought why does it seem that the individuals that seem to be shunned by 'western society' seem to take up these 'alternative' ideologies? Is it because they are smart, and they understand the advantages of doing so? Or is it because they are scared and feel that they need some sort of niche that will accept them without passing judgment? Interestingly, the Hare Krishna movement has had a big effect on hippy culture in the 60s (many people from beat poets to the Beatles justify this claim), and by going to India, one can see that Krishna and hippies still go hand in hand. So what is it about these alternative individuals with their alternative lifestyles? Are they coming (into what they deem to be a better world-view) or are they going (from a world that they feel rejected within)?
Or are these ideas fundamentally the same, just looked at from two different vantage points?
Well let me begin with an event that occurred yesterday. I was sitting in Debonairs (it's a pizza company in South Africa) waiting for the pizza that I had ordered to fill the hole that had cropped up during my day of not eating much. While I had been walking down the hill from UCT towards Debonairs, I had heard some singing going on across the street, but I didnt think much of it; I have seen various popular street bands and buskers during my time here. And then there are the pairs of people on the trains: someone who is blind or has some visible justification for sympathy is led through the traincars by an escort. They then sing about the salvation they are going to receive when they get to heaven, and the salvation that Christ will give them, all the while keeping the beat by shaking the cup full of coins they are using to collect donations like a makeshift tambourine. Ive heard rumours that people are exploiting this: 'renting' these blind people, seniors, babies, and whomever else to try to exploit people's sympathy, and in the end giving the individuals that they rent little or nothing.
But anyway, back to my original point: singers, not so strange a thing to conceive of, even when its dark out. So while I was waiting for my pizza, these same singers came to the door of Debonair's and started belting out their song. At first I took the ascetic look and the robes to imply that they were Buddhists. But then I listened to the chant of 'Hare Hare Krishna Krishna' that had become so familiar to me whilst I was traveling throughout India, noticed that a few of them were sporting Bindi dots, and then it became clear where they were coming from.
So what does this have to do with Beavis & Butthead?
Well I recall one episode, I think it was called 'Balloon'. At the beginning of the episode, they see a plea from someone to stop people being irresponsible with their helium balloons because they drift out to sea, fall into the water, and are choked on by dolphins. So what happens? Our two heroes think 'hey, let's bring some helium balloons to the local aquarium, break them over the pool, and choke these poor aquatic lifeforms... "that would be cool" [of course]'. After the outtakes where they get high on the helium, etc., they go to the aquarium, and they are holding onto the balloons, but then Beavis hands over something that makes him too light to hold the balloons down, so they carry him up over the pool. Butthead takes aim with the slingshot, hits Beavis 'in the nads' causing him to let go of the balloons and fall into the pool. At that moment, 'its hammer time' and a bunch of hammerhead sharks come into the pool. But they are quickly escorted back because there is some sort of 'pollution' being detected in the water. Beavis has had a pee in the pool.
So what?
Well at the end of it all, Butthead asks Beavis 'did you pee in the pool because you were smart, or because you were scared?' And Beavis replies 'because it felt good.'
While I was watching these singers outside of Debonairs, this very idea occurred to me, because a few of the singers were westerners who had taken up the cause of Hare Krishna. One of the individuals in question was a guy that would fall entirely within the bounds of token geek/dork/nerd/loser: awkward face, huge glasses, etc. He had shaved his head except for a ponytail at the back and was belting away along with the rest of the group. So I thought why does it seem that the individuals that seem to be shunned by 'western society' seem to take up these 'alternative' ideologies? Is it because they are smart, and they understand the advantages of doing so? Or is it because they are scared and feel that they need some sort of niche that will accept them without passing judgment? Interestingly, the Hare Krishna movement has had a big effect on hippy culture in the 60s (many people from beat poets to the Beatles justify this claim), and by going to India, one can see that Krishna and hippies still go hand in hand. So what is it about these alternative individuals with their alternative lifestyles? Are they coming (into what they deem to be a better world-view) or are they going (from a world that they feel rejected within)?
Or are these ideas fundamentally the same, just looked at from two different vantage points?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Journalists on Drugs
I've recently taken on a few journalism jobs. I dont know if this is philosophy or not, but it should be. Most recently, Ive been selected as new 'Science/Nature/Technology' journalist for the Cape Town Globalist. The theme of the next edition is 'Drugs', which is quite nice.
Interesting things, drugs. I may have reported earlier that when I had imbibed far too much bhang lassi in Gokarna and was confined to my bed for the better part of the evening and night (that is, when I wasnt exorcising demons in the squatter toilet out back... though no hangover thankfully!), what was most on my mind was the whole notion that reality can be distorted so ridiculously by pouring a small amount of toxin into the flowing river of sense-data. The brain is an amazing thing and these sorts of situations ask serious questions surrounding 'what is reality?' If reality is the sum total of our sensory experiences, then the fact that we can use various stimulants to change that reality seem to lend a certain amount of credibility to a more idealist notion of reality: 'to be is to be perceived', as Berkeley put it. If I take a drug cocktail that puts me in the shoes of the protagonist in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', reality has suddenly changed from rational to completely distorted. It seems fairly obvious that my reality will no longer correlate with anyone else's reality, including that of my buddy who has also taken said drug cocktail.
So maybe solipsism isnt so far-fetched after all...
(Oh, and for anyone interested, the plan for my article is that it be one entitled 'Gifts from the Gods' or 'The Opiate of the Masses' (Im not sure which approach to take yet) and it will be all about the drug properties of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh... There are recent articles about frankincense stimulating various ion pathways in the brain that are not well-understood, and there have been studies about myrrh having various drug-like effects as well... and gold... well we all know the drug-like euphoria, giddiness, hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia that come with having various amounts of gold around.... i.e.
"[Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." -- Warren Buffett)
Interesting things, drugs. I may have reported earlier that when I had imbibed far too much bhang lassi in Gokarna and was confined to my bed for the better part of the evening and night (that is, when I wasnt exorcising demons in the squatter toilet out back... though no hangover thankfully!), what was most on my mind was the whole notion that reality can be distorted so ridiculously by pouring a small amount of toxin into the flowing river of sense-data. The brain is an amazing thing and these sorts of situations ask serious questions surrounding 'what is reality?' If reality is the sum total of our sensory experiences, then the fact that we can use various stimulants to change that reality seem to lend a certain amount of credibility to a more idealist notion of reality: 'to be is to be perceived', as Berkeley put it. If I take a drug cocktail that puts me in the shoes of the protagonist in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', reality has suddenly changed from rational to completely distorted. It seems fairly obvious that my reality will no longer correlate with anyone else's reality, including that of my buddy who has also taken said drug cocktail.
So maybe solipsism isnt so far-fetched after all...
(Oh, and for anyone interested, the plan for my article is that it be one entitled 'Gifts from the Gods' or 'The Opiate of the Masses' (Im not sure which approach to take yet) and it will be all about the drug properties of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh... There are recent articles about frankincense stimulating various ion pathways in the brain that are not well-understood, and there have been studies about myrrh having various drug-like effects as well... and gold... well we all know the drug-like euphoria, giddiness, hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia that come with having various amounts of gold around.... i.e.
"[Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." -- Warren Buffett)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)