It seems to me that when people put on their thinking hats and start devising ideas of how political life should be organized, they act almost as if human nature and human society are tabula rasa, something they can form into any shape they want.
In fact, there is every reason to think that both human nature and human social organization have deep internal structure. While it is certainly admirable to set goals to organize them into ways that will be good for all the inhabitants, these goals can only be met if the methods, the structures that are set up, work according to the rules of human and social nature.
At a practical level, we don't know what these natural laws are and we must have some structure. However, it seems to me that this should be a very active field of research, with much input from mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, biologists, evolutionary theorists and people of that nature that study complex systems. In our complex social world, we have only the faintest understanding of what effect any action will have at a macro level. Doing experiments on the real system is dangerous, plus there are a very limited number of scenarios that can be explored.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Epidemics
The virulence of pathogens is related to how quickly they can move from one host to another. The more quickly they jump, the more virulent they are.
In the 3rd world, so I am told, the population density is high and the sanitation is low. Why don't they have epidemics? They do have endemic disease -- malaria, TB and so on. They don't have the reruns of the black death. Why not?
I now have a guess at an answer. Having high population densities and poor sanitation doesn't by itself mean that pathogens move quickly from one host to the next. It is the job of the immune system to protect the individual against invasion, with endemic disease, the immune systems have had a chance to develop defenses against the prevailing diseases going around. Some people will get sick, sure, but many will not and the velocity will still be fairly low, low enough to keep the virulence in check.
It follows, then, that if a novel disease, one that immune systems are not familiar with, were to get loose, then an epidemic could follow. This could be caused by evolution, some new disease evolves from the existing ones (e.g. the new flu) or it could be caused by population movement, diseases that are endemic in one area moving to a new area in which they are unfamiliar.
This might be how the plague developed in the 14th century. I read, if I remember correctly, that one of the things that happened in the early 14th century was increased trade between Europe and the far east. It is fairly well agreed that the plague came from the east, perhaps it became an epidemic due to increased population densities (making transmittal easier) and having a novel pathogen introduced from some distance away.
In the 3rd world, so I am told, the population density is high and the sanitation is low. Why don't they have epidemics? They do have endemic disease -- malaria, TB and so on. They don't have the reruns of the black death. Why not?
I now have a guess at an answer. Having high population densities and poor sanitation doesn't by itself mean that pathogens move quickly from one host to the next. It is the job of the immune system to protect the individual against invasion, with endemic disease, the immune systems have had a chance to develop defenses against the prevailing diseases going around. Some people will get sick, sure, but many will not and the velocity will still be fairly low, low enough to keep the virulence in check.
It follows, then, that if a novel disease, one that immune systems are not familiar with, were to get loose, then an epidemic could follow. This could be caused by evolution, some new disease evolves from the existing ones (e.g. the new flu) or it could be caused by population movement, diseases that are endemic in one area moving to a new area in which they are unfamiliar.
This might be how the plague developed in the 14th century. I read, if I remember correctly, that one of the things that happened in the early 14th century was increased trade between Europe and the far east. It is fairly well agreed that the plague came from the east, perhaps it became an epidemic due to increased population densities (making transmittal easier) and having a novel pathogen introduced from some distance away.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
An imaginary future
I read recently that in Pakistan, about 20% of the population is hungry -- presumably as defined by the UN, which is less than 1800 calories/day for an adult. The population growth rate is is 1.99% (according to google just now). That implies that they'll add on the order of 3 million people a year (starting from 150 million, again from google).
It is reasonable to think that peak oil happened last year & that peak food will happen at about the same time. In all probability, as the world population grows, richer countries (and people) will get more food while poorer countries get less.
Thus, as a first approximation (and this post is in hugely round numbers) let us assume that as the population of Pakistan grows over the next few years, the amount of food available to the country stays constant. Also, the new people get fed something, which takes food away from people already there. Another wild approximation -- each new person added means that an existing one moves from adequate nutrition to being underfed.
By that logic, Pakistan will add 15 million people in the next 5 years and another 15 million people will move to being underfed, taking the percent of the population that are hungry to about 36% (60 million out of 165 million).
When enough of the population is malnourished, society is likely to become unstable. The options are famine, civil war or external war or some combination of these. The most politically popular is likely to be external war, by the logic that someone is going to die, but better them than us.
What are Pakistan's options for external war? Going against India may be attractive, but perhaps suicidal. Also, India is crowded with people, as is China. There isn't a lot of room for Pakistanis to move in and set up shop. Afghanistan is already seen as part of themselves. Iran has lots of people and is ethnically Persian, plus it's on the bad side of the US - a possiblity. Then there are the northern 'stans ... Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhastan. These areas are lightly settled and the al Quada doctrine says they should be "liberated". The problem, of course, is that Russia would object.
Suppose they do decide to go north. They cut a deal with India, that Pakistan will quit fighting with India over Kashmir if India will support them in moving against the central Asian states. They cut a deal with China, that it can have part of Russia and/or Kazakhastan if China helps them out against Russia.
So, now there is Pakistan, India & China, moving into central Asia. Russia objects & the US and Europe back them up. Saudia Arabia backs the US and the government is overthrown, then the new one comes in on the Asian side (giving Asia lots of oil at the expense of the west). Africa & the rest of Asia, except Japan & Australia (western side) come in one the Asian side. It's the West against the East ...
It is reasonable to think that peak oil happened last year & that peak food will happen at about the same time. In all probability, as the world population grows, richer countries (and people) will get more food while poorer countries get less.
Thus, as a first approximation (and this post is in hugely round numbers) let us assume that as the population of Pakistan grows over the next few years, the amount of food available to the country stays constant. Also, the new people get fed something, which takes food away from people already there. Another wild approximation -- each new person added means that an existing one moves from adequate nutrition to being underfed.
By that logic, Pakistan will add 15 million people in the next 5 years and another 15 million people will move to being underfed, taking the percent of the population that are hungry to about 36% (60 million out of 165 million).
When enough of the population is malnourished, society is likely to become unstable. The options are famine, civil war or external war or some combination of these. The most politically popular is likely to be external war, by the logic that someone is going to die, but better them than us.
What are Pakistan's options for external war? Going against India may be attractive, but perhaps suicidal. Also, India is crowded with people, as is China. There isn't a lot of room for Pakistanis to move in and set up shop. Afghanistan is already seen as part of themselves. Iran has lots of people and is ethnically Persian, plus it's on the bad side of the US - a possiblity. Then there are the northern 'stans ... Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhastan. These areas are lightly settled and the al Quada doctrine says they should be "liberated". The problem, of course, is that Russia would object.
Suppose they do decide to go north. They cut a deal with India, that Pakistan will quit fighting with India over Kashmir if India will support them in moving against the central Asian states. They cut a deal with China, that it can have part of Russia and/or Kazakhastan if China helps them out against Russia.
So, now there is Pakistan, India & China, moving into central Asia. Russia objects & the US and Europe back them up. Saudia Arabia backs the US and the government is overthrown, then the new one comes in on the Asian side (giving Asia lots of oil at the expense of the west). Africa & the rest of Asia, except Japan & Australia (western side) come in one the Asian side. It's the West against the East ...
Aux barricades
Ethnic Uighurs waited with sticks behind a barricade in their neighborhood in Urumqi on Wednesday.
It's 1848 again, or something like that.
Monday, July 6, 2009
China & the high tech society
When I posted recently about the troubles of having an authoritarian high tech society, one of the examples that came to my mind was modern China. Another actually is pre-revolutionary France -- not as high tech, I'll admit, but one in which the populace had rising, but unmet, expectations.
I am reading a book now on modern China -- China: Fragile Superpower: How China's Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. The commentary describing the book remarks
["It" is war between the US & China.]
When I read the tea leaves, I doubt that anything can prevent breakage in China. It's an authoritarian country that is trying to turn itself into a modern, high tech society, which seems impossible enough on the surface. Then add in:
In other words, even if China did not have an authoritarian government, it would have trouble. Does it look like the government can square this circle?
The headlines today read: China Locks Down Restive Region After Deadly Clashes Does this mean that things have gotten so bad the government can't prevent the news from getting out or that they are becoming more open?
The big question though, is how much longer will China be stable & in what way will it explode?
I am reading a book now on modern China -- China: Fragile Superpower: How China's Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. The commentary describing the book remarks
She sets out to explain why it is not a mere fantasy and why we, basically, need to be nice to China to keep the nightmare at bay.
["It" is war between the US & China.]
When I read the tea leaves, I doubt that anything can prevent breakage in China. It's an authoritarian country that is trying to turn itself into a modern, high tech society, which seems impossible enough on the surface. Then add in:
Inside China, she argues, the party leadership is hemmed in by threats to its stability: a rapidly aging population, the rise of the Internet, privatization of the economy, a widening gap between urban rich and rural poor, a restive population fed up with corruption, pollution that not only sickens but kills, mounting unemployment in an economy that needs to grow 7 percent annually just to provide jobs for 25 million new people entering the workforce.
In other words, even if China did not have an authoritarian government, it would have trouble. Does it look like the government can square this circle?
"All around them," Shirk contends, "the leaders see new social forces unleashed by economic reforms that could subvert the regime." Moreover, Shirk describes a regime -- half Mafia, half corporate board -- so obsessed with staying in power that it is ill-equipped to deal with these challenges. In a country where communist ideology is dead and a dog-eat-dog form of capitalism is ascendant, you'd think economic interests would be supreme. That's not the case, Shirk argues. After the crackdown on student-led protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the military and security services gained even more power than they already had in a society built on Chairman Mao's maxim that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The headlines today read: China Locks Down Restive Region After Deadly Clashes Does this mean that things have gotten so bad the government can't prevent the news from getting out or that they are becoming more open?
The big question though, is how much longer will China be stable & in what way will it explode?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
All models are wrong, but some are useful
It seems to me -- and I realize that there are many would would disagree violently -- that this applies to the idea of God.
To start with, I (unlike most people it seems) distinguish the idea of God from religion. Religion, I claim, is a social phenomenon. God is (and I speak loosely here) a mystical one. Religion trades on the idea of God, but it's really about people.
The ideas that people have about God (including the things that religion claims) are, in essence, models. The best of them say "there is something there, but we can't describe it or say what it does or how it works". This, of course, doesn't give much to work with. :-)
People go on to flesh out these ideas, with what they believe about God. Being as how God is something that can't really be described, these ideas -- which are mental models -- must be wrong in some way. However, the models themselves do have effects on people and thus, are more or less useful to the people that hold them.
The models people hold about God don't affect what it is (so I claim), but they do affect the people that have them. Thus, while they are wrong (God being ineffable and all), some are useful. Also, I will add, the models that are useful to one person may or may not be useful to another.
People that believe in an angry or vengeful God will find the world a fearful place (or perhaps it is the other way round, frightened people will believe in an angry God), while people who believe that God is on their side, however hard it may be to understand how that happens, will have a reason to reject fear. Angry and frightened people will foment strife, peaceful and secure people will work for peace. Thus, what people believe to be true of God matters, independent of the nature of the deity itself.
To start with, I (unlike most people it seems) distinguish the idea of God from religion. Religion, I claim, is a social phenomenon. God is (and I speak loosely here) a mystical one. Religion trades on the idea of God, but it's really about people.
The ideas that people have about God (including the things that religion claims) are, in essence, models. The best of them say "there is something there, but we can't describe it or say what it does or how it works". This, of course, doesn't give much to work with. :-)
People go on to flesh out these ideas, with what they believe about God. Being as how God is something that can't really be described, these ideas -- which are mental models -- must be wrong in some way. However, the models themselves do have effects on people and thus, are more or less useful to the people that hold them.
The models people hold about God don't affect what it is (so I claim), but they do affect the people that have them. Thus, while they are wrong (God being ineffable and all), some are useful. Also, I will add, the models that are useful to one person may or may not be useful to another.
People that believe in an angry or vengeful God will find the world a fearful place (or perhaps it is the other way round, frightened people will believe in an angry God), while people who believe that God is on their side, however hard it may be to understand how that happens, will have a reason to reject fear. Angry and frightened people will foment strife, peaceful and secure people will work for peace. Thus, what people believe to be true of God matters, independent of the nature of the deity itself.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
High tech societies
It has occurred to me that in a high tech society, there must be a large population of people that use their own good sense to make significant decisions.
For example, the way that my job works is that people come to me & say something to the effect of "We have this vague idea of something that needs to be done. Go do it." My task then, is to make something sensible of that vague idea & then implement what I come up with.
This general pattern is the norm for most of the people that I know. It isn't, of course, the way that everyone's job works, but my kind of job is essential to keeping the technology running. [My particular job is actually about making new technology, but new technology is required for wealth creation.]
The point here is that a high tech society requires a large supply of people who have almost complete freedom to do anything sensible in their jobs. In short, it trains people to think and act for themselves.
An authoritarian (much less totalitarian) government requires people to follow instructions, to do as the government decrees. This is incompatible with having people make decisions for themselves.
It follows that a society with a large amount of advanced technology is incompatible with an authoritarian regime. As people learn the habit of thinking for themselves in their jobs, they are likely to continue that behaviour to the rest of their lives and in particular, start to have independent thoughts about the way the government organizes their society. These people have de-facto power, since they keep the technology working -- they keep the lights on & the economy running. Sooner or later, there will be change. It may be peaceful, but it is more likely to be violent, a la the French Revolution.
For example, the way that my job works is that people come to me & say something to the effect of "We have this vague idea of something that needs to be done. Go do it." My task then, is to make something sensible of that vague idea & then implement what I come up with.
This general pattern is the norm for most of the people that I know. It isn't, of course, the way that everyone's job works, but my kind of job is essential to keeping the technology running. [My particular job is actually about making new technology, but new technology is required for wealth creation.]
The point here is that a high tech society requires a large supply of people who have almost complete freedom to do anything sensible in their jobs. In short, it trains people to think and act for themselves.
An authoritarian (much less totalitarian) government requires people to follow instructions, to do as the government decrees. This is incompatible with having people make decisions for themselves.
It follows that a society with a large amount of advanced technology is incompatible with an authoritarian regime. As people learn the habit of thinking for themselves in their jobs, they are likely to continue that behaviour to the rest of their lives and in particular, start to have independent thoughts about the way the government organizes their society. These people have de-facto power, since they keep the technology working -- they keep the lights on & the economy running. Sooner or later, there will be change. It may be peaceful, but it is more likely to be violent, a la the French Revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)