The Peculiar Mind Trap

Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, gave a pretty good speech to the Queensland University of Technology Business Leader's Forum (transcript) on "The Shape of Things to Come: Long Run Forces Affecting the Australian Economy in Coming Decades". He outlines the four major pressures on Australia that he sees coming in the future, namely: Population ageing and growth; Climate change adaption and the prospect of climate change mititgation; The information and communications technology revolution; and the impact on Australia's terms-of-trade of the re-emergence, as global economic powers, of China and India.

This is not a proposal of solutions but an outline of the challenges, which is a good place to start. His view is that Australia has a lot of advantages and is currently in a good situation, but it will take some clever and wise policy to keep it that way rather than heading in the other direction.

In regards to the news that Australia will likely increase its population by 60 percent over the next 40 years he noted that we have "a set of behaviours that suggests that with a population of 22 million people, we haven't managed to find accommodation with our environment. Our record has been poor and in my view we are not well placed to deal effectively with the environmental challenges posed by a population of 35 million". While it might be theoreticallly possible to house 35 million people in Australia (if not desirable) it certainly can't be done if we attempt to run the place as we're doing now. The way it is being run can't sustainably support the current 22 million, so another 60 percent will be a nightmare.

He also had something to say about the attempts to mitigate climate change without anyone being put out. "As far as climate change mitigation is concerned, all I want to say today is that the imposition of a price signal to reflect the negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions is intended to cause a significant shift in the structure of the Australian and global economies over coming decades; quite possibly the largest structural adjustment in economic history. That is the point of doing it." Well said.

Thanks to Ross Gittins for bringing this to my attention.

Gardenofrenda

This is our ofrenda for Día del Muertos this year, the first in the new house. It's a bit smaller than normal, but with the newborn we haven't been paying a lot of attention to be honest.

The special thing about this is that most of it came from the garden. The beans, the tomatoes, the corn, the calabazas (pumpkins), and the marigolds all came from our garden.

We planted the corn and the beans and the two smaller calabazas came from the seeds we planted together in the traditional style, while the big calabaza was from a neighbours vine that invaded over the wall. It grew two metres off the ground... As for the tomotoes and the marigolds, we didn't plant those they just started growing.

A study by Professor Anita Bundy, Professor and Chair of Occupational Therapy at the University of Sydney, has shown that if primary school kids are "let loose with buckets, hay bales, car tyres and cardboard boxes" they become "significantly more active, social, creative and resilient", according to an article in the SMH. Physical activity increased by 56.8 percent (based on average speed), which has got to be a good thing for our slowly enlargening population.

Play

The concern is that schools are taking play equipment out of the playground in case the children get hurt -- that's reportedly as a result of an increased emphasis on safety by the Education Department. Here's a good example of the thinking: "While the (kids) revelled in the opportunity to create a "Caribbean cruise ship" from tyres, teachers feared they would use the planks to hit each other...this did not happen. Instead, they used them to make bridges and test their physical prowess."

In fact, there's an argument (by Dianne Giblin, the president of the Parents and Citizens Association of NSW) that boring playgrounds make kids less safe by increasing bullying.

Obviously kids need a safe environment to play in -- but that doesn't mean a sterile, non-challenging environment. Rather than not giving kids planks, it's far better to teach them not to hit other people with the planks and to use them in a constructive way...which seems to be their natural inclination in any case. Taking out monkey bars may prevent children from falling half a metre onto sand, but it also prevents them from developing the physical skills necessary to do many things later in life.

In this particular case utilitarianism is a good tool to use (because the costs and benefits accrue to the same individual). If there is a small (effectively negligible) chance of serious injury with the play equipment and a great deal of benefit to children in terms of being more active, social, creative and resilient the result has to be to provide an environment where children can explore the world, social structures and themselves.

A French court has convicted Scientology in that country of fraud, with the Scientology Celebrity Centre and a related bookshop in Paris being fined a total of €650,000 according to the SMH. Alain Rosenberg, the church's leader in France, was given a two-year suspended jail sentence and a €30,000 fine. The court didn't restrict the organisation's practices, possibly because of it noted "efforts by the association to change its practices".

My problem with Scientology is illustrated in this article, which quotes: "In 15 years, Stoffen says he spent $75,000 on Scientology courses and books; others, he says, "spent well over $500,000"...Then he discovered a 150-page dossier detailing his personal life, including a program on how to "deal" with him and get more money from him. "I vomited all night."

There's an interesting article on the Foreign Policy website discussing religion and the use and abuse of that. This is not an article trying to convert anyone or putting a case for belief, it's rather an article arguing against the "abolish all religion" mantra of Dawkens, Hitchens et al (which is itself, of course, a reaction against "abolish evolution" discourses, which is a reaction against...blah blah blah).

Anyway, it points out that rather than being the cause of all the world's ills, it's normally an excuse -- and often a protest, and gives examples, such as: "At the beginning of the 20th century, nearly all leading Muslim intellectuals were in love with the West and wanted their countries to look just like Britain and France. What has alienated many Muslims from the democratic ideal is not their religion but Western governments’ support of autocratic rulers, such as the Iranian shahs, Saddam Hussein, and Hosni Mubarak, who have denied people basic human and democratic rights."

It points out that attempts to ban the Islamic veil have backfired by causing vast numbers of women to start using the head-dress. "Such actions have turned veiling, which was not a universal practice before the modern period, into a symbol of Islamic integrity." I saw this happen in Australia.

I doubt this is the end of the debate, but I think it's a well thought-out and reasoned rebuttal. I'll end with perhaps my favourite quote from the article:

But "religious" wars, no matter how modern the tools, always begin as political ones. This happened in Europe during the 17th century, and it has happened today in the Middle East, where the Palestinian national movement has evolved from a leftist-secular to an increasingly Islamically articulated nationalism. Even the actions of so-called jihadists have been inspired by politics, not God. In a study of suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004, American scholar Robert Pape concluded that 95 percent were motivated by a clear strategic objective: to force modern democracies to withdraw from territory the assailants regard as their national homeland.

This aggression does not represent the faith of the majority, however. In recent Gallup polling conducted in 35 Muslim countries, only 7 percent of those questioned thought that the September 11 attacks were justified. Their reasons were entirely political.

Nano_09_blk_participant_120x240_png

There less than 200 hours left before the National Novel Writing Month begins -- at least in my time zone. I thought I'd send a wake up call to see who in these groups is still active, who's going to participate again this year and so on. Also, since it's my first time, does anyone have any advice?

How did this group run last year, and how did it help (or hinder, I suppose)?

The third of Harvard's Justice with Michael Sandel series concerned Libertarianism, one of the "strong theories of rights" as described by Sandel (all my statements on various philosophies in this article is based on Sandel). These hold that individuals matter, not just as a tool to be used for a larger social purpose or to maximise utility but as separate beings with separate lives worthy of respect, and for that reason it is a mistake to think about justice and law by just adding up preferences and values.

Liberty

According to Libertarianism the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty. Precisely because we are separate individual beings we're not available to any use that the society might desire or devise. That means the right to live freely, to live our lives as we please provided we respect other people's rights to do the same.

Libertarian theory has some opinions on government, which they believe should be a minimalist state to cover what everybody needs such as defence, police force, judiciary and so on. Specific points include:

1. No paternalist legislation -- That is, not passing laws that protect people from themselves. Examples include seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws. The argument is that while wearing helmets may be a good thing, the state has no business coercing people by law to do so.
2. No morals legislation -- That is, laws which give expression to the moral values of society as a whole. The classic example is prohibiting homosexuality, and the current kerfuffle in the US over gay marriage is a current example.
3. No redistribution of income from rich to poor -- That's pretty self explanatory, covering socialised programs of health and welfare and so on. The argument goes that redistribution is a kind of coercion, that it amounts to theft by the state (or the "majority") from people who happen to do very well and earn a lot of money.

On paternalist legislation, I think it's a matter of degree -- wearing a seatbelt is a pretty minor change that can have some huge effects, whereas (for example) outlawing fireworks because every couple of years some idiot sticks one in his mouth is a pretty major change, denying millions safe enjoyment and effectively destroying a holiday in Australia (my personal bugbear). I would also point out that if you don't wear a helmet you will probably use more of the common needs than people who do: If you want an ambulance service that responds to everybody and emergency wards that do the same you have to accept simple measures to reduce the load on those. Telling someone to wear a seatbelt is not the same as outlawing cars.

On the idea of morals legislation I would largely agree, although many laws (theft, murder) come down to morals in the long run -- depending on how you define everything.

Sandel spent much of the class focusing on the third point. He pointed out the United States is amongst the most inequal of all advanced democracies in the distribution of wealth, with 10 percent of the population owning 70 of the wealth. Libertarians argue you can't know if that is just or unjust without more information.

He quoted Robert Nozick in what makes income distribution just:

1. Justice in acquisition (initial holdings) -- Did people get the things they used to make their money fairly?
2. Did the distribution arise from the operation of free consent, people buying and selling on the open market? 

RobertNozick

Unfortunately neither Sandel nor the students who participated in the discussion returned to these points, which I think is a shame because they're fundamental to the discussion. Maybe it was discussed in tutorials or something.

On of my problems with this line of reasoning is how to calculate whether wealth was earned justly? I think this argument resembles utilitarianism in that it's trying to measure justice. Let's take one of the examples given: Michael Jordan managed to earn $78 million in a single year from his sports contract and endorsements. He got this wealth because of his ability to play basketball -- practically the definition of earning it himself. But was it just?

When Nike sponsored Michael Jordan the company paid him more to advertise its shoes than it paid all of the workers in the third world countries to make them. The shoemakers worked long hours in unhealthy conditions for pitiful pay making shoes at a fraction of the cost that Nike would sell them for. Is it just that Michael Jordan got paid more than all of them combined? If we conclude that it isn't justice, it's still pretty hard to pin the blame for this onto Jordan...but he does benefit from the infringement of those workers rights.

One could argue that the workers don't have to accept employment in the sweatshops, but if the only other alternative is starvation it's not much of a choice. Which raises another question: Do people really have the right and liberty to live their lives as they please if they don't have enough to eat?

The other example used, Bill Gates, is equally problematic considering the number of antitrust cases that have been held against Microsoft. Warren Buffet is also near the top of the wealth list, and (this is a guess on my part) he has made some of that wealth investing in mining companies which have abused workers rights and destroyed the environment in other countries. My point is that it is to all intents and purposes impossible to neatly and cleanly delineate wealth that was earned without respect for other people's rights with wealth that was. This is especially true for inherited wealth; is it justly earned? What if the wealth came from a great-great-grandfather who was a slave owner? Is it now justly earned because the injustice is so far removed? Can an argument be made for inheritance tax under the Libertarian paradigm?

Either ditch the "justly earned" clause altogether and say that redistribution of wealth shouldn't happen because in this world it's every man for himself and it doesn't matter how you get the money as long as you get it, or admit that those who have benefitted most from society did so -- directly or indirectly -- at the expense of others and they have an obligation to mitigate the worst effects of that.

The other issue is luck. Those who become incredibly successful in any endeavour pretty much always have drive, talent, ambition, and extraordinary amounts of hard work, but they also have a healthy dose of luck in their lives. The book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell put forth a pretty convincing argument that success comes from bucket-loads of practice (about 10,000 hours is required to become an expert, if I recall correctly) along with the luck required to gain that practice. Bill Gates had the opportunity to use the most advanced computers of his time while in eighth grade -- now, he put in a lot of effort to master the programming, but the fact remains he had the opportunity to put in that effort while pretty much no-one else his age did. The school, the town, the society, all contributed to this -- he couldn't have done it if he had been born in Uganda.

In the video this final point (of a debt to society) was answered in this manner: "These people became wealthy by doing something that society valued highly, if anything everything is cancelled out. Michael Jordan paid his debt to society because they enjoyed watching him play." Which could be true, but I don't think it negates the fact that most often the wealth is a result -- even if it's indirectly -- of injustice. This is not an argument against accumulating wealth, by the way, just that people need to recognise the fact that no matter how noble you try to be you are probably in some way benefiting from some form of injustice, and you should try and mitigate that.

Leaving the "justly earned" clause of Nozick that I have such problems with, let's look at the argument in general against this form of taxation. Nozick argued that taxation is the taking of someone's earnings, of the fruits of their labour. If the state has the right to take the fruits of one's labour, isn't that morally the same as according to the state the right to claim a portion of one's labour? So taxation is morally equivalent to forced labour, because forced labour involves the taking of one's leisure, one's time, one's efforts, just as taxation takes the earnings that one makes with one's labour. So taxation is slavery, and it violates the Principle of Self-Possession.

I can see this line of reasoning, but I think it's equating a couple of things that aren't really the same. Forced labour, slavery, dictates to someone what work they do and where, and when. Taxation lets people work as they will, but takes some of the earnings for the common good -- for the society which creates the environment which allows you to do the work you want to do. It's all fine and well saying that you work hard programming computers and it's unjust for the government to demand part of your salary, but without the long-term stable society you live in you'd be tilling a field or starving.

Finally, a question if any Libertarians happen to have made it his far. How far does this non-coercion of contributing to the general well-being extend? To take it to an extreme, is it morally wrong to force someone to provide food for their children?

Related:

Putting A Price Tag On Life And Measuring Pleasure

Discussing The Moral Side Of Murder And Cannibalism

The Druid stood stoically, sharpening his knife. Gold was not a metal that was on the Balanced side of keeping an edge, and it didn't need much work to take the edge off.

*shnickt*

It was sharp now; it had been sharp for weeks. The Winter Solstice was only a couple of moons away, and the Seekers had not yet returned. That didn't bode well -- if they were not back in time with the sacrifice the Cycle would be out of balance.

*shnickt*

Stay out of balance, corrected the Druid to himself mentally. The Cycle would stay out of balance. The Summer Solstice and the Equinoxes were no problem, but last year the Seekers had returned for the Winter Solstice empty handed. The year before that they had brought a fox, barely suitable.

*shnickt*

And the world had lost its balance; without the Sacrifice winter had not ended. The sun had stayed small and the wind cold, the ground had barely lost the frost that froze it and plants couldn't decide whether to bud or not. The Druid knew this had surprised some in the tribe, but had been too worried to gloat over this affirmation of his teachings.

*shnickt*

The Winter Sacrifices had been getting steadily less ... efficacious, is a good word to use ... for years now. A degree of comfort had been taken in the fact that they weren't the only tribe; there are other Seekers and other Druids and other Sacrifices, and it was the conglomerate of these actions that pushed the changing of the seasons.

*shnickt*

Despite this, the Druid had worried -- if his Seekers couldn't find a sacrifice, why should those of other tribes fair any better? His Seekers roamed far, and were not incompetent. With the lingering of the ice this past year the Druid could see that other tribes were having the same difficulty. It had also raised other theological issues, such as: "Should the Spring Sacrifice be made if winter had not ended?" In the end the Spring Sacrifice had been made, the given reason being to maintain as much balance in the cycle as was possible, but the Druid knew that many of his contemporaries were hoping it would serve in a sort of sleight-of-hand manner, to try and distract the world from the fact that the Winter Sacrifice had not happened as it should have.

And if it was absent again? What then? Some in the tribe were worried that were the Winter Sacrifice to be again be missed winter would again linger as it had last year. The Druid knew better, but did not comment. Last year the cycle had been thrown off-balance; another missed Sacrifice would throw the Cycle even further off-balance and the coming winter would be stronger, meaner, and more persistent ... and each missed Sacrifice would strengthen winter.

Some people thought it couldn't get any worse, argued that winter couldn't last forever, but the Druid knew better. The Sacrifices had not being going on for time immemorial, as commoners in the tribe thought. The Druids remembered. Somewhere in the past, five or six millennia ago (the exact timing was a matter of debate, since early Druids had counted the long-years in terms of generations, which was hardly a precise measurement), winter had not ended. It had simply ... kept going. Eternal cold, year-round ice, tiny sun, for generations and generations.

That the tribes had survived at all was a testimony to their strength, to the their adaptability, and -- thought the Druid to himself -- to their sheer bloody-mindedness. The first Druids had developed the ceremonies and the sacrifices in order to end the winter, and bring balance to the cycle. A sacrifice of a deathly predator turned winter, as the sacrifice of a newborn beast turned spring, sacrifice of mature trees turned summer and that of harvest fruits turned autumn.

It had worked, and for all this time the dying of winter had given way to the birthing of spring, which in turn gave way to the maturing of summer, which yielded to the reaping of rewards at autumn, which succumbed to the dying of winter which scoured the land to make way for new birthing.

The Druid was entering his time of reaping, of enjoying the rewards a wise life would bring him. Instead he felt a cold in his bones and ice in his blood, and dreamed at night of endless, trackless white lying across the land, forever.

He came to with a start -- realised he was no longer sharpening his knife but had been standing there motionless, gazing into the distance, displaying an emptiness of thought and deed that reflected winter rather than autumn. He looked around. In the distance was a boy waving his arms, who must have startled the Druid out of his reverie with an unregistered shout. The boy was too far away to notice anything untoward, for which the Druid was thankful, and he strode towards the boy to see what was needed.

================================================

The Seekers returned on the day of the Sacrifice, and they returned empty handed.

================================================

Stonessep

The Druid gathered his acolytes and met with the Seekers amongst the Stones. The tribe huddled at the edge of the clearing, too far away to hear anything of import but too worried to leave and do something useful. A thought passed through the Druid's head that he would have waited near a blazing fire rather than in the freezing snow, but he dismissed it as a too-early sign of wintering.

He smoothed his features: Obviously he was as disappointed as everyone else that the Seekers had returned without a sacrifice, and probably far more worried about the consequences, but there was no point being hostile to the Seekers. They had done their best, and their best was good. Just not good enough, it appeared.

The Seek Leader stood tall and stoic, with a granite expression that mirrored the Stones that surrounded them. He was brief.

"We failed."

Too brief, really.

"How?" blurted the Druid, before he could consider a more delicate response.

"There are no more predators," stated the Seek Leader. "We tracked far and wide, and saw neither print nor spoor of a wolf. The great birds stayed high, and those of their nests we found were long-abandoned. If any lynx are left they are too cunning to be spotted. The bears ... there has been no sign of a bear for years."

"A fox?" asked the Druid, embarrassed at the hope in his voice. The Seek Leader merely shook his head, and though he held it straight all could see the shame in his eyes.

"What does this mean?" asked Eögn, a young Seeker. Out of his place, but at this time who should chastise him? The Druid swallowed a sharp and unhelpful retort, and the small gap was filled by the voice of Ayel, his second-most-senior Acolyte.

"It means we have not been living in balance," he stated. There was a shuffling amongst the Acolytes. This debate was becoming increasingly bitter in Druidic circles, with the position espoused by Ayel and a significant minority of the Druidic class being viewed with deep suspicion and resentment. They argued that the Sacrifices and Ceremonies weren't enough to maintain balance, that the tribes had to adjust the way they lived to be in balance as well. Some Druids considered the idea of the insufficiency of the Sacrifices to be blasphemy, others just plain silly (after all, had the Sacrifices and Ceremonies not worked for millennia?), while tribal elders were leery of an expansion of the Druid's role into their domain. The Druid's role was to balance they cycles, they insisted, it was the role of the tribes to use the cycles to get a living.

Ayel continued: "The tribes have grown, and now cover the land. We enjoy all its bounty." The Seekers nodded: That was the rightful reward for successfully maintaining balance. "We till the fields, and winnow the wild herds. The tribes have even taken to protecting the herds to increase the meat, have they not?" Again the Seekers nodded. It was a good idea, right? Protect the herds from the wolves and there would be more deer meat to spit over the fire.

"Let's not discuss this now, there are more pressing matters," interrupted the Senior Acolyte, looking pointedly at the Druid. But the Druid was gazing intently at Ayel. The esoteric theological argument had never been put in plain words before for the benefit of those not of the Druidic class -- and it seemed to the Druid that something important had been missed in the carefully crafted jargon of the Druidic discussions.

"This is the most pressing matter!" snapped Ayel. "This is the point. This is the problem. Without access to the herds, what do the predators eat? With all food denied to them, they must starve, and die." Ayel paused in the silence -- good man, thought the Druid, as a part of his mind registered approval with the way Ayel captured the attention of his audience, as all good Druids must -- "And they disappear."

The Seekers looked at one another, the Acolytes did likewise. The logic was infallible: No food for the predators meant no predators, and no predators meant no Winter Sacrifice, and no Winter Sacrifice meant no end to Winter.

The Seek Leader turned his gimlet gaze onto Ayel. "You have not seen these beasts in the wild, you have only seen them trussed after we capture one. The wolf is fast and cunning, strong and agile, a consummate predator. They can take down the biggest stag, hunt a quarry over unending fields, they take what they want when they want. Such a hunter does not offer its belly. What can stand in the way of such strength? It is inconceivable that the wolves could fail."

Ayel returned the gaze coolly. "And yet, year after year, you have brought us a wolf for the Sacrifice, as I'm sure many Seekers do for their tribe. How do you capture such an indomitable foe?"

The Druid started. "That's enough!" He snapped, putting all his authority into the words. "We'll make do this year, and seek answers from the Conclave. This discussion ends." He had leapt along the path of this argument to see its inevitable conclusion, and didn't want to arrive there.

Ayel acceded to the wishes of his leader, but a young Seeker was less controlled. "Make do with what?" he squealed. "We have nothing! Nothing! The predators are all gone! What happened?" Ayel was a good Acolyte and ceded to the Druid's authority, but his main fault was that he couldn't let a foolish remark pass unanswered. Even as the Seek Leader motioned for quiet amongst the Seekers Ayel retorted: "They have all fallen to a greater predator, can't you see that?"

Standingstone

The winter wind whistled through the Stones. Silence reigned inside the circle, as people considered the significance of this final outburst or simply huddled away from the heated argument warming the words of the protagonists.

"We'll find something. There's a ... old ritual which will satisfy," improvised the Druid, aghast at his words, at the blasphemy of creating a fake ritual.

"No," interrupted the Seek Leader. "The Ceremony will be the same. It has to be. It will be."

The Druid narrowed his eyes. The Seek Leader had Druidic authority, but he was still subordinate to the Druid. "I decide what the Ceremony needs," he said.

"That is correct," replied the Seek Leader, with the precision that had made him so successful at his job. "You control the Ceremonies and you make the Sacrifices, and you say what is needed for each. But it is my job to bring what is needed, it is my authority to choose which predator, which newborn, which trees and which harvest to sacrifice. That is my jurisdiction."

He paused, waiting for the Druid to contradict him, but the Druid could not.

"And we have returned with a predator," stated the Seek Leader. Only one or two faces reflected misplaced hope, most reflected shock, disgust, horror or grim acceptance of the declaration by the Seek Leader.

"That ... cannot be," said the Druid. "It is ... " he searched for a word.

"Necessary," supplied Ayel. The Druid turned on him.

"What about the importance of running the Tribe in balance?" he spat.

"The argument was never that the Sacrifices weren't necessary, only that they weren't enough," replied Ayel coolly. "And with the imbalance of the tribe, they're all we've got."

"You sent me for a predator, and I have returned," intoned the Seek Leader, using the formal words of Sacrifice Handover. "Am I not the greatest predator?"

The Druid paused, his frozen mind unable to see another path, and finally admitted defeat in the debate.

"A great predator indeed. This will tip the balance and continue the cycle," he replied, using the formal words of acceptance. He kept his gaze locked on that of the Seek Leader, and read there compassion. The Seek Leader understood. It was one thing for Ayel to make his philosophical argument, and for the Seek Leader to offer himself as Sacrifice -- it was the Druid who would would have to perform the ceremony, who would have to slit the throat of his long-time friend. He gazed down the long future, knowing that now the predators had disappeared they would not return.

The Seek Leader would not be the last man to lie atop the Sacrifice Stone, and the Druid wished his winter had come sooner.