Scandalously Non-Scandinavian

Madame:

With tongue-in-cheek, but effectiveness maintained, you have fleshed out my focus point well!

On another note, I was thinking the other day that the economy is on track to get somewhat better.  But since we are policy-adrift, the chances of it getting foundationally and structurally better are low.  And with it, a whole lot of other things about our society.  At a time and in a world of SO much promise, so many favorable winds.  Wonder how many Romans felt the same way at one time?

On to other things: Are you saying that it isn’t the Scandinavians who are responsible for that colossal island of plastic and other trash floating in the ocean, the one that is of such unbelievable size (and growing) that it may become “continent X” at some point? :)

Speaking of the Scandinavians, how interesting that the “high tax, socialistic” Scandinavian countries don’t seem to have a significant deficit or debt problem, certainly not like the US or others who strive to be “low tax, anti-socialistic.” In fact, the Scandinavians hardly have a debt at all in comparison to everyone else. 

While certainly one cannot extrapolate over-broadly on this, as there are far more factors than the above, it does indicate that simple ideological mantras are often self-defeating.  Ergo, we should learn what we can from the Scandinavians.  In doing so, we would be following what some of the most successful people in the world have said is a simple formula: find who is doing what you want to do and doing it very well, learn all you can from them, and then apply it as similarly as you can in your own situation.

We will have to jettison a great deal of arrogance, conceit, and false pride on our part to do that.

Trashy Random Ridiculousness

Professor J,

Your answer to my question (thorough as always) brings to mind something I read about some time back. Stanford technology law professor, Lawrence Lessig was questioning the corporate tactic of buying up large numbers of copyrights whether or not they were going to produce the work, just to keep someone else from obtaining it. I'm aware of another discussion, which connects more directly to the point you were making, about in our current age of sharing and information overload how reasonable is it to call any idea "original" anymore. We all hear fragmets of ideas, snippets of music, and are bombarded with visual images. And most things tend to be derivatives or adaptations of other ideas when they aren't flat out remakes or sequels which is increasingly the case.  While we'd want to protect creators from theft, nailing down where one got an idea is increasingly difficult. The problem of accurately attributing a quote pales by comparison. Imagine anyone having this discussion 100 years from now!

While I'm writing this I'm acutely aware of something. 

The internet is killing our (okay, maybe it's just my) attention span and ruining our (ahem, my) ability to think about anything for very long. While looking for an article about some serious topic I'm tempted with photos of Reese Witherspoon's drunken mug shot, Kim Kardashian's pregnancy weight gain, and some cryptic thing that has Sharon Osborne "devastated." Half an hour later, my brain has shrunken and I can't remember what I was looking for when I signed on. Statistics for something or other...

Oh look! An article about the right way to wear shorts. Well, it is spring...

I wonder if there is a Pinterest board about shorts. (Of course there is...and one about board shorts) I could however find nothing about Shorts who are bored ;), not to be confused however with Bored Short (TV).

What were we discussing? Ah, yes the fluidity of ideas. This is generally where one says "Look! A squirrel!"

On a more serious note, a sad one really, last week we were walking in a new park along a nearby river. Topping a hill and being able to see the water we commented on how lovely it was only to get closer and see a mountainous whirlpool of trash and debris trapped against some fallen logs. For any lover of the outdoors such things are disheartening. Unfortunately in our city we are quite use to seeing garbage spilling down embankments near exits or litter in highway medians. The quantity of the river trash was astounding. It consisted of hundreds of milk jugs, water bottles, several basketballs, a few soccer balls, plastic toys, and anything else imaginable that would float. Standing there looking I couldn't help but think back to our cruise last year and sailing for hours upon hours through Scandinavian waterways where we saw not ONE piece of anything floating in the water.

I mentioned this recently to a British friend who has lived in several countries. I was praising what I saw as a healthy concern for the community in those societies. She was quick to point out that when actually living in those places however, that concern for the group could become a bit tedious if not, overbearing. "It's a bit onerous not to be able to run one's bath at ten at night or have one's windows open if playing music because a neighbor thinks nothing of complaining about such things."

So, once again that delicate balance between what's good for everyone vs. the individual is hard to find.

Another recurring theme, along with squirrels, of course. ;)

Thralldom of the Moment

Madame:

We of modern America (and often the world) are interconnected, but not integrated.  We are technological neighbors, but rarely sociological ones.  And that brings big risks from the disaffected and disconnected or malconnected.

The quote you reference, like many attributed to Jefferson (and Einstein, Twain, Churchill, and other famous personages) is a little problematic.  Like many such quotes, it cannot be proven that he said it firstly, or even that he ever said it.  Nor can it be proven that he didn’t say it.  For years, historians and presidential specialists gave the quote you listed a pass because Jefferson was for the time period a well-connected man to political thought, and the quote WAS uttered during the time when Jefferson was alive.  Jefferson was not above absorbing and disseminating things he found valuable and failing to attribute (Locke and the Declaration of Independence anyone?).  However, he conversed with other educated individuals, who would know from whence something came, and therefore would not recognize it as “plagiarism.”  Therefore, the thinking was that it was plausible that he uttered it, even if not original to him, especially as there was close to period evidence.  The thinking in recent times has begun to shift however, and now if a quote is not discovered in hard contemporary evidence as attributed to someone, it is “undetermined,” or even “questionable.”  Depending on how important the subject, or how dedicated the scholar, additional techniques, including, “period” speak/writing and others, are used to help assess the plausibility of a quote.  There has also been a great deal more challenging of myths and “old-saws,” which has contributed to this new trend.

Therefore, purists will say he never uttered it, those in the middle will say he might have uttered it, but almost certainly not first, and the average American who is at all familiar with it will say of course he said it.  And someone with a political point to make it and in need of Jefferson’s weight will attribute it solely to him. :)

The tragedy you well describe and evaluate is one that meets our psychological criteria of urgent and actionable.  Unlike so much in life, in those situations the people feel they can do something effective, and RIGHT THEN. 

Of course, part of all the focus and attention arises from our spectacle culture, as Hedges explained.  One magnified by a ratings hungry media.  Our attention, our focus, our energies get captured, enraptured, and we are galvanized, albeit temporarily.

Where is that energy, that focus, for far more meaningful, lasting, and impactful challenges that are eating us to our core?

Last week I probably sounded quite upbeat.  Looks like I’ve restored balance this week with this Grump Master special! LOL

Again?

Professor J,

Here I am again posting after a horrific event. Of course we all hope each time will be the last and sadly, each of us knows that isn't likely. It's very disturbing that we are quickly becoming a people who cannot simply enjoy simple public activities with crowds of people without having to feel wary. We are more and more often reminded to become perpetually vigilant. Funny, didn't someone say that being ever vigilant was the price of freedom? They  could not have imagined the seemingly unglued world we currently find ourselves in.

*This is usually attributed to Jefferson but there's a bit of confusion about it being original to him isn't there? Can you clear that up for us?

In the midst of this sickening crime, we saw what we see so often, people rushing to help. While exhausted and stunned runners crossed the finish line, having accomplished a feat, I myself cannot imagine, first responders and everyday citizens rushed to do what they could. People helped each other, put the well being and safety of others before their own personal safety, they rose to the occasion.

And then there are the other reactions. The front page photos that are doctored. The conspiracy theories that radio talk shows spew before the smoke has cleared. A child's trauma, up close and personal, used to sell magazines. It's always surprising to me how often the bottom line really is the bottom line for some. I wonder if the public's overall emotions match mine when we have this kind of tragedy. Immediate shock and dismay, followed by pride and thankfulness for the heroic actions we see, and then eventually disgust and disappointment at many in the media.

And then we have the Family Guy hoax.

Read about that psychotic piece of nonsense here: No, Family Guy Didn't Predict The Boston Marathon Bombing. 

After 9/11 we were admonished to get use to the "new normal." Is that how we can categorize these events and the accompanying circuses? I know I've asked this before and it may seem like a recurring theme, but, is this who we are? It's terribly sad when fellow citizens make these matters worse for everyone.

Is anyone else just really tired?

"War! What Is It Good For?"

Madame:

Look who’s rolling out the catchy titles now! :)

While there is little doubt that the era of mass and instant or near instant communication (and especially the visuals) has had a limiting effect on the universality of war, much of the trend, as documented by political scientist John Mueller, seemed already at hand even at the turn of the 20^th century.  In fact, he puts forth good evidence that the very horror of the world wars only accelerated greatly a trend that was already in motion.  At first, he postulated that it was motion primarily only for that people previously the most continuously warlike in history—the Europeans.  But he has since presented strong evidence that the trend appears to be largely a pan-one and across peoples.

There are two quotes that I think are relevant for inclusion here.  The first is from Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and his “observation on the threat of a Japanese attack on British India during the Second World War…: ‘Much as I hated war,’ Nehru wrote, ‘I was in a sense attracted to this corning war. I wanted a tremendous shakeup,’ he continued, ‘something that would force [Indians] to face the reality of today and outgrow the past which clung to them so tenaciously. Vast numbers would die’ in such a war, he admitted, but this was necessary, for, he concluded, quoting the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche,  ‘only where there are graves are there resurrections.’” (as cited in Rahul Sagar, “State of mind: what kind of power will India become?” International Affairs, 85: 4 (2009), page 8)

The second is from the above author himself, on the same page: “Nor should the state’s focus be on the cultivation of military power. This is not only inappropriate, in the light of India’s acute developmental needs, but also unnecessary, since the interdependence fostered by globalization rewards economic power and makes violent conflict unprofitable.”

Globalization and “soft power,” therefore, also appear to have had quite the modifying effect on the universality of war.

As for seeing the trend be confirmed, I would not speculate, for both the political scientist and historian in me know all too well the wrenches that un-forecast or mis-forecast events can toss!

And as for the up and coming generations, and their strategizing, delaying gratification, and planning well, they will probably be deficient until some personal and/or system shock of sufficient strength intervenes.   Rather like their forebears.  :)  Of course, it appears to the cadre of those who are preceding them in chronology that the current whippersnappers crop may be a bit more deficient in those above traits than usual!  LOL And indeed they may be, or perhaps the present world is both a more forgiving and less forgiving one where those are concerned.  The variables, the variables! :)

We definitely live in interesting times!

Against the Wall-E

Professor J,

Of course there was one film (Pixar) showing less than perfect bodies in unitards and what might happen if we continue on our current path. Wall-E depicts a futuristic lethargic lifestyle where no one walks anywhere but everyone  rides around in high tech wheelchairs. Our sedentary descendents are pictured consuming things like milkshakes constantly, and not communicating to one another,  but spending all day in front of computer screens. A natural progression of things perhaps, if we don't change our ways?  And why were these humans living in space? Ah yes, because their ancestors (us) had trashed the planet and it was uninhabitable.

Huh.

Of course there is a delicious irony in a Disney owned company making such a film.

I had an interesting (to me anyway) thought during these last couple of posts. I've often heard a rule for worrying about things that goes something like "Will it matter 100 years from now?" How about ten? One? Which isn't actually a bad trick for personal problems of individuals. We spend a lot of time thinking in terms of "what if?" and "if only." For the most part worrying about things other than what we actually have control of, which often means working on changing ourselves, is an act of futility. There are only a few life choices that are going to fall into the "yes" column for any of those questions.

Isn't it funny then that as as a society this kind of worrying about how things will affect the future is exactly what we most need, and are least likely to do? The group dynamic seems to bring about change very slowly, tipping points are hard to reach.

Question: How much impact would you say that world wide communication, instant information, and access to visual documentation of events has on the "universality of war slipping?" It seems to me that in the past century that would be the biggest change but perhaps the good professor has another idea or two. ;) And while we are waiting to see if this trend continues, can we really expect to see that during our lifetimes?

I agree with you that we focus on whatever the current crisis is instead of formulating any long term strategy. We have trouble with long term thinking don't we? We are not a people who are familiar with delayed gratification. I think anyone of a certain age would note a new urgent, intense feeling of entitlement among the current younger generation. They are smart and connected enough to come up with answers, but the waiting, planning, investing may prove difficult for them. (I'm bordering sounding like a cranky old broad here. "When I was young...") :)

The Poverty of Our Thinking and Inaction

Madame:

Good observation.  I guess I had not noticed that about sci-fi movies.  Amazing the mind-scatomas that one can have!

War is a trait that may be altering its status as a universal one.  While it is still too early to pronounce on it with anything resembling high probability, what it APPEARS to have happening is this:

The universality of war is slipping.  More cultures, including even our fairly heavily involved own, are finding it out of the norm.  Wars between large groups of people are becoming less frequent, less lengthy, and less deadly per capita.  The world culture itself is coming to treat war (that surfaces to the level of its notice) like a bad case of the flu that must be treated and come to some sort of resolution, even if recovery is rarely complete or wholesome.  And while wars of the 19^th and much of the 20^th centuries often tended toward increasingly thorough involvement of a society, those since have tended to become less, with civilians often either becoming crossfire targets only, or even effectively as observers (with various levels of interest or disinterest) of groups of mercenaries or small forces as those move through or go off to fight, briefly.  Of course, some conflicts that have not risen to the level of “war” have targeted civilians often and directly, but even those rarely have total per capita casualty rates of previous wars, and not just because of infrequency of infliction.

As I said, these are preliminary observations.  Data is still narrow.  But it will be nice to observe to see if this trend continues!

Poverty is a much more complex (and yet in some respects simple!) phenomenon than one might first realize.  There is individual-caused poverty, that is, where an individual causes themselves or their families, by some really bad decisions or lack of decisions, to become poverty-stricken.  There is also society (including world society) caused poverty, where marked imbalances in resource availability, institutional robustness, infrastructural capability, exploitation and selfishness by the few and/or the powerful, etc. make the poverty structural for many people (they can do little about it). While the first kind of poverty will likely remain, barring some marked change in the human condition, stubbornly resistant to amelioration, the second kind of poverty is a result of the choices we make or don’t make as a whole.  As an increasing number of individuals, including even some statesmen, are coming to realize, so many of our problems are so integrated with this second kind of poverty.  As Lester Brown writes in his book Plan B, dedication of resources and attention to this second kind would pay incredibly synergistic and system strengthening dividends.

As for misinformation/disinformation, religion, and consumerism, I will leave those aside for now, remarking only here that there are vailings and countervailings about each.

However, I can’t argue with your statement that we seem destined for quite a while to be plagued with issues of power, control, greed, and foolishness! :)  And I agree with most of your last paragraph of course, well said.

So often, we fixate on policy crises, instead of strategy, and so we lurch from crisis to crisis, and never achieve what we want.  It also plays into our psychology and physiology, both of which are designed to respond to immediate and near-immediate stimuli.  It also explains much of why we have the MADDENING propensity to ignore or dither about obviously foreseeable problems, failing to address them when we could do so with far fewer resources, pain, suffering, destruction, waste.  And so we ignore them until they become crises.  And THEN, what was always IMPORTANT becomes also URGENT, and we act (often tragically, wastefully, or foolishly) or perish.

I remember the words of the man from 2050 in the documentary like film, After the Warming (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa4aWFDCMqQ

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJLyPSRusc): “I was thinking about that the other day, that 20^th Century attitude that’s caused us all this grief.  It always reminds me of that joke about that fellow who falls off the skyscraper.  You know it?  I think it explains everything that’s happened.  The fellow is falling past the 17^th floor, and somebody calls out to ask him how he’s doing.  And he shrugs and says, ‘so far, so good.’  (looks wistfully)    And so they left it to us.  And we nearly solved it.  But it was a close thing wasn’t it?  And it DIDN’T HAVE TO BE…”

Future Shock

Professor J,

What a fun exercise! I have a feeling we could play this game for ages, although I doubt that imagining the future is something humans do very well. Please refer to Toynbee and Gibbon as you see fit. ;)

Add my own to this list? Pray tell, Sir what is it that you think you've missed? Female fashion, perhaps. I'm all for the chic Star Trek unisex unitard but not until we have resolved obesity and healthcare. Have you ever noticed there are no obese people in Sci-Fi movies? Even though all the physical work is taken care of by technology and we don't see people exercising, Hollywood seems to suggest at some point we've made an end run around obesity (well, perhaps not a run LOL).

I wonder if you aren't asking the wrong question. I wonder if a better predictor of what we may or may not still be thinking and arguing about are the same things that universally and historically plague mankind versus those that change greatly depending on cultural morays and tradition. Sadly, I doubt this culture or any other is going to be free of things like war, poverty, misinformation/disinformation (propaganda). I'd also have to place spirituality and religion along with consumerism (a nice word for greed) here.  All of these things seem to have much to do with the heart of man. Entangled there we find a lust for power and control coupled with greed but we seem always looking for something else to temper our foolishness.

Another list might include social and political ideas (who is responsible for whom and who is going to pay for it?). Education, healthcare, social security, poverty can go in this list as well, and infrastructure along with immigration.We could put species extinction here, since a concerted effort involving countries, organizations, and corporations would be needed to completely solve the problem.

Now we come to the things that are based on complex and intertwined --actually it all is but I'm trying to simplify here--systems. I'd group immigration, environmental impact, weapon regulation (you didn't specify if you were talking about individually owned weapons or weapons of war amassed by nations), corporations, deficit and debt, energy independence, food and water supply, jobs, plight of the middle class, and partisanship together for this one.

The last list is one where we are trying to find balance between individual rights, personal morality and what benefits society as a whole. Which brings us to (personal) weapon regulation, obesity, drugs, and overpopulation.

And finally, marriage equality. That's the only thing on the list I don't think will still be a problem. In fact I think we may all feel quite ridiculous.

So of the five categories I've created here, I only see one as being put to rest as soon as 50 years from now. Look how long the war on smoking has been going on and while progress is made as far as protecting we nonsmokers from the effects, the problem still exists. And let's not forget that history can turn on a dime, unpredictably, often within hours as a result of an unforeseen human act or natural disaster. And for the most part change is S-L-O-W. There is a lot of steady persistent pushing and pushing, leaning heavily into a problem before a tipping point is reached.