terms
I just completed and turned in the last paper I will ever write for a long, long time. Pending finishing off some grading for 190m, my career as a UW undergraduate ends. I imagine there will be posts about what that all means, etc etc, in the near future. For now...the paper.
What Is To Be Done About What Is To Be Done?
PHYS/SIS 216, Spring 2008 Term Paper
I gave my final presentation on a topic which I thought would be quite interesting to me. In keeping with the prediction that the end of mankind would be caused not by some deliberate, malicious act, but by some slip of a vial or other mistake which would inadvertently kill us all, I wanted to explore the possible causes of industrial and scientific accidents, and what could be done to prevent them. In particular, given my study in human-computer interaction, I wanted to look at how the design of tools and interfaces may contribute to these accidents. It was a subject that would afford me a good amount of research into an area that I’m interested in, and it would tie in quite nicely to the subject of this course. Unfortunately, it was not to be.
Two things changed my mind. The first was the presentation of another student in my section. One of the last to go, he started things off by walking to the chalkboard and writing a single word: “PEACE”. He suggested that for all our involved discussions about the Basic Problem and what can be done to prevent catastrophe, all we really need to do is love a little more, care a bit less about killing some people we’ve never met from a country we don’t much care about. I do think that the Basic Problem is in fact a problem, and that something like a cooperative, international effort to ward against particularly high risk situations is appropriate. I also understand the general skepticism held by many of my peers, who suggest that there is simply no way that countries will cooperate in this manner, particularly with the United States. But to be blunt, I am just a single American citizen. I have voting rights and I can write to my representative, requesting change, but I have no further political clout. And if I did? Perhaps I could run for political office. Would I want to relinquish the life I have built so far in order to pursue a solution to the Problem? Because that is the level of dedication it would require. Balanced against the possibility of preventing errant apocalypse, it seems incredibly selfish to do otherwise, but if faced with this choice, I think I, and many others, would decline. “Why me? There must be something else that can be done!”
The second experience that turned me away from honest scientific research was the viewing of a video clip in lecture, and Vladi’s comments afterward. The clip was of Victor Borge’s comedic act with Marilyn Mulvey. Other such performances might be very dignified, sophisticated to-dos, the audience listening appreciatively and feeling quite good about patronizing high art. I doubt very much that they would have laughed even a bit, or given their hearts a much-needed lightening. This was no such performance. Through Borge’s wonderful humor and showmanship, the audience was treated to a hilarious display of musical antics, the sort of spectacle that really allows one to forget one’s current difficulties and just laugh a bit (or a lot!), and be happy. After the video ended and the students’ laughter, having almost completely pervaded the lecture hall, died down, Vladi suggested to us that Borge was a man doing truly good work. He was using his skills and abilities to make others happy, for however long or short a time. The duration was immaterial; rather than imposing misery on others, Borge had directed his energy toward improving the quality of life for others, most likely complete strangers who he knew nothing about, but who he nevertheless believed had the right to be happy, at least for a time. This is, I believe, something else that can be done. For those who lack the interest or ability to tackle politics and international policymaking, this should be our task. The work of “ordinary” people ought to be to better the lives of others, by whatever means we have available.
To be sure, Vladi’s proposed response to the Basic Problem allowed for steps we all can and should take. Every thinking human being can benefit from education, without which we can hardly hope to even understand the scope and danger of the Basic Problem. A stronger, more complete education will allow us to more intelligently participate when the next steps of risk assessment and defense/prevention come around. Whether we’re educating or learning, add this to the everyman’s to-do list.
But what happens next? Unfortunately, while education may allow us to assess risk individually, and take steps towards the prevention of catastrophe in our own lives, it still leaves us ill equipped to manage things on the international level. That responsibility still lies with our politicians and policymakers. What else are we supposed to do? The latter half of the Solution assumes an inevitable first catastrophe which will finally catalyze real effort towards preventing another. Are we, then, to just wait until this happens, learning what we can and preparing contingencies until we are finally struck? Hasn’t catastrophe occurred time and again, with World War II, 9/11, and all sorts of other terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world? And each time, our responses have been brash, ill informed, or simply ineffective. Perhaps the explanation is that we simply weren’t well enough prepared. Or, perhaps, the steps outlined in the Solution are not enough. We have stepped back enough to realize that policy changes on a worldwide level must be made if we are to survive ourselves. From this viewpoint we can also see that really, people don’t like each other very much. Globally, nationally, across the street, people judge each other for differing lifestyles, lifestyles which they partially or completely misunderstand. The great majority of the time, we will have never even met those who we are judging. The great majority of the time, the lifestyles we choose have no bearing on the lives of those halfway across the world. So why do we even care? Why do we insist on going to war, literally or otherwise, against people who aren’t hurting anyone by believing in gods other than ours? Difference in religion has commonly been thought to be one of the chief reasons for conflict between global East and West. In the first months of American military action against Afghanistan, hate crimes were directed against mosques in the United States, even in Seattle, otherwise thought to be one of the more liberal, welcoming American cities. And why do we try to enforce faith through law, fighting against those who want our children to be born when we are ready to care for them, and not before? Aren’t those who pursue abortions in essence doing the rest of us a favor by not putting further strain on our already taxed resources until they can personally account for that strain? And worst of all, why do we mock, scorn, and persecute those who are very simply and honestly choosing who to love? The United States, with its long history of human rights reform, still balks at giving the right to marriage to any pairing of individuals, regardless of sex. We spend a tremendous amount of time and effort making the lives of harmless individuals miserable, for no reason other than to make the world “right” in our eyes. The coming catastrophe would have to be little short of a true apocalypse if we are to be expected to really change our natures.
And woe betide us if we do not. We expect that if we educate ourselves, consider the possible risks to the wellness of our planet as a whole, and take steps to mitigate those risks, we will be well enough prepared after the inevitable tragedy to clean up the pieces and start anew, such that no future terrors will occur. But how far can preparation take us? The catastrophe may come, and some extremely thoughtful, well prepared individuals will step forward and suggest that, “Here is what we need to do, we suggested this long ago, and finally we know what will happen if no action is taken, so please listen to us.” And the rest of us as a species are so foolishly misanthropic that we might think, “Well, how were you so thoughtfully prepared for this? How did you know that we would be faced with such a terrible tragedy, and why did you not do anything about it?” And sensationalism will build on ignorance, stubbornness, and more cynicism, and those of us wise enough to prepare for the fruits of the Basic Problem will be suspected, looked at with mistrust, and ostracized or worse for not acting sooner. Conspiracy theorists may even suggest that for all our careful postulating, we must have orchestrated the whole thing, catastrophe and all, in a bid to gain international power. This all sounds very dramatic and movielike, but human nature disappoints distressingly often.
Now what is to be done? We can hope that when the time comes, human nature will step up and we will gracefully recover from our previous folly, and be in a better position than ever before. On the other hand, we could also hope that such folly will never happen, but the risk of mass manslaughter or worse seems great enough that we are indeed concerned, so we must prepare for every eventuality we can conceive of. This includes the great cynicism with which we view one another. Accounting for this may well be equally as great a task as the Basic Problem tackles. Worse, there is no singular catalyst we can wait for to spark a sudden growth of trust and love for our neighbors. Trust amongst populations is fleeting and often dependent on the current political situation; it cannot be counted on, even improved on directly. We must develop trust on an individual, personal basis.
How is this to work? We distrust for a wide variety of reasons. We think that others want what we have, materially, interpersonally, or otherwise, and so they cannot be trusted with the safety of those things. We fear that others judge us and wish to change or otherwise shun us because we do not live up to their standards, so they cannot be trusted with our own well being. We judge others in turn, thinking that we are superior to them, so they cannot be trusted with our work. All these varieties of mistrust are so ingrained into our society that it in fact seems foolish not to look at each other with less than a cautious eye. How are we to reverse such a deeply held skepticism? Love.
That you snicker or roll your eyes is further evidence that this must be done. Why do we consider the concept of loving one another so cheesy, so romanticized and immaterial to practical discussions of current events? We consider it such a wonderful surprise when someone on the street simply smiles at us, and yet we are often incapable of the same effortless gesture, one which can improve another’s mood, by whatever amount. Maybe that smile is the difference between thanking the cashier at the grocer, furthering goodwill, or trudging off without any real human contact to speak of and leaving our cynical state unchanged. Maybe it’s the difference between being able to cope with a difficult child at home or not, berating them once more for less than perfect performance and imprinting an experience they will never forget. We have no idea how our actions, however large or small, will affect those around us, or how far they will go, so why aren’t we doing our very best to do good? The work of making humanity happier can be done on whatever scale we wish, whatever is most accessible or even convenient for us. There is no excuse not to do what we can, but we must do it with genuine love for each other.
Many of us agree that the Basic Problem is serious, and worth of addressing. Some do not, and they will be even harder to convince when the time comes. But for that first group, we must not settle simply on education and policy making. When the time comes, this preparation may not be enough to effect the change we need. With our species as misanthropic as it is, even the most benevolent, strictly managed efforts will be viewed with mistrust, unless we as humans can work to break down that cynicism which we seem to cherish so much. We are told to install and maintain “BS detectors”, and well we should, until we reach that point where we can trust one another implicitly. However, this must not prevent us from extending every good deed we can, directly in the face of another’s skepticism. We might say that teaching, warding against disaster, or devising policies for the world to benefit are just beyond our scope as individuals, but no one can say that being kind is too much. Every smile, assistance, comedic operatic performance we offer moves us towards a happier, more trusting world. Our efforts are done in a race against that which the Basic Problem warns; if we move quickly, we may outrun any intentional catastrophe and save ourselves the effort of rebuilding. And even if we do not, if catastrophe happens regardless, our efforts will ease that which follows, such that hopefully in the ensuing chaos, we can remember that by and large, we were decent to each other, and that we are worth trusting. Without that trust, we are doomed to repeat history over and over, but with it, we might be able to institute our first government of Earth, and reap the benefits thereof.
Bibliography
Chaloupka, Vladimir. “Science, the Basic Problem, and Human Security: What Is To Be Done?” University of Washington, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/bp.doc (accessed June 13, 2008).
What Is To Be Done About What Is To Be Done?
PHYS/SIS 216, Spring 2008 Term Paper
I gave my final presentation on a topic which I thought would be quite interesting to me. In keeping with the prediction that the end of mankind would be caused not by some deliberate, malicious act, but by some slip of a vial or other mistake which would inadvertently kill us all, I wanted to explore the possible causes of industrial and scientific accidents, and what could be done to prevent them. In particular, given my study in human-computer interaction, I wanted to look at how the design of tools and interfaces may contribute to these accidents. It was a subject that would afford me a good amount of research into an area that I’m interested in, and it would tie in quite nicely to the subject of this course. Unfortunately, it was not to be.
Two things changed my mind. The first was the presentation of another student in my section. One of the last to go, he started things off by walking to the chalkboard and writing a single word: “PEACE”. He suggested that for all our involved discussions about the Basic Problem and what can be done to prevent catastrophe, all we really need to do is love a little more, care a bit less about killing some people we’ve never met from a country we don’t much care about. I do think that the Basic Problem is in fact a problem, and that something like a cooperative, international effort to ward against particularly high risk situations is appropriate. I also understand the general skepticism held by many of my peers, who suggest that there is simply no way that countries will cooperate in this manner, particularly with the United States. But to be blunt, I am just a single American citizen. I have voting rights and I can write to my representative, requesting change, but I have no further political clout. And if I did? Perhaps I could run for political office. Would I want to relinquish the life I have built so far in order to pursue a solution to the Problem? Because that is the level of dedication it would require. Balanced against the possibility of preventing errant apocalypse, it seems incredibly selfish to do otherwise, but if faced with this choice, I think I, and many others, would decline. “Why me? There must be something else that can be done!”
The second experience that turned me away from honest scientific research was the viewing of a video clip in lecture, and Vladi’s comments afterward. The clip was of Victor Borge’s comedic act with Marilyn Mulvey. Other such performances might be very dignified, sophisticated to-dos, the audience listening appreciatively and feeling quite good about patronizing high art. I doubt very much that they would have laughed even a bit, or given their hearts a much-needed lightening. This was no such performance. Through Borge’s wonderful humor and showmanship, the audience was treated to a hilarious display of musical antics, the sort of spectacle that really allows one to forget one’s current difficulties and just laugh a bit (or a lot!), and be happy. After the video ended and the students’ laughter, having almost completely pervaded the lecture hall, died down, Vladi suggested to us that Borge was a man doing truly good work. He was using his skills and abilities to make others happy, for however long or short a time. The duration was immaterial; rather than imposing misery on others, Borge had directed his energy toward improving the quality of life for others, most likely complete strangers who he knew nothing about, but who he nevertheless believed had the right to be happy, at least for a time. This is, I believe, something else that can be done. For those who lack the interest or ability to tackle politics and international policymaking, this should be our task. The work of “ordinary” people ought to be to better the lives of others, by whatever means we have available.
To be sure, Vladi’s proposed response to the Basic Problem allowed for steps we all can and should take. Every thinking human being can benefit from education, without which we can hardly hope to even understand the scope and danger of the Basic Problem. A stronger, more complete education will allow us to more intelligently participate when the next steps of risk assessment and defense/prevention come around. Whether we’re educating or learning, add this to the everyman’s to-do list.
But what happens next? Unfortunately, while education may allow us to assess risk individually, and take steps towards the prevention of catastrophe in our own lives, it still leaves us ill equipped to manage things on the international level. That responsibility still lies with our politicians and policymakers. What else are we supposed to do? The latter half of the Solution assumes an inevitable first catastrophe which will finally catalyze real effort towards preventing another. Are we, then, to just wait until this happens, learning what we can and preparing contingencies until we are finally struck? Hasn’t catastrophe occurred time and again, with World War II, 9/11, and all sorts of other terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world? And each time, our responses have been brash, ill informed, or simply ineffective. Perhaps the explanation is that we simply weren’t well enough prepared. Or, perhaps, the steps outlined in the Solution are not enough. We have stepped back enough to realize that policy changes on a worldwide level must be made if we are to survive ourselves. From this viewpoint we can also see that really, people don’t like each other very much. Globally, nationally, across the street, people judge each other for differing lifestyles, lifestyles which they partially or completely misunderstand. The great majority of the time, we will have never even met those who we are judging. The great majority of the time, the lifestyles we choose have no bearing on the lives of those halfway across the world. So why do we even care? Why do we insist on going to war, literally or otherwise, against people who aren’t hurting anyone by believing in gods other than ours? Difference in religion has commonly been thought to be one of the chief reasons for conflict between global East and West. In the first months of American military action against Afghanistan, hate crimes were directed against mosques in the United States, even in Seattle, otherwise thought to be one of the more liberal, welcoming American cities. And why do we try to enforce faith through law, fighting against those who want our children to be born when we are ready to care for them, and not before? Aren’t those who pursue abortions in essence doing the rest of us a favor by not putting further strain on our already taxed resources until they can personally account for that strain? And worst of all, why do we mock, scorn, and persecute those who are very simply and honestly choosing who to love? The United States, with its long history of human rights reform, still balks at giving the right to marriage to any pairing of individuals, regardless of sex. We spend a tremendous amount of time and effort making the lives of harmless individuals miserable, for no reason other than to make the world “right” in our eyes. The coming catastrophe would have to be little short of a true apocalypse if we are to be expected to really change our natures.
And woe betide us if we do not. We expect that if we educate ourselves, consider the possible risks to the wellness of our planet as a whole, and take steps to mitigate those risks, we will be well enough prepared after the inevitable tragedy to clean up the pieces and start anew, such that no future terrors will occur. But how far can preparation take us? The catastrophe may come, and some extremely thoughtful, well prepared individuals will step forward and suggest that, “Here is what we need to do, we suggested this long ago, and finally we know what will happen if no action is taken, so please listen to us.” And the rest of us as a species are so foolishly misanthropic that we might think, “Well, how were you so thoughtfully prepared for this? How did you know that we would be faced with such a terrible tragedy, and why did you not do anything about it?” And sensationalism will build on ignorance, stubbornness, and more cynicism, and those of us wise enough to prepare for the fruits of the Basic Problem will be suspected, looked at with mistrust, and ostracized or worse for not acting sooner. Conspiracy theorists may even suggest that for all our careful postulating, we must have orchestrated the whole thing, catastrophe and all, in a bid to gain international power. This all sounds very dramatic and movielike, but human nature disappoints distressingly often.
Now what is to be done? We can hope that when the time comes, human nature will step up and we will gracefully recover from our previous folly, and be in a better position than ever before. On the other hand, we could also hope that such folly will never happen, but the risk of mass manslaughter or worse seems great enough that we are indeed concerned, so we must prepare for every eventuality we can conceive of. This includes the great cynicism with which we view one another. Accounting for this may well be equally as great a task as the Basic Problem tackles. Worse, there is no singular catalyst we can wait for to spark a sudden growth of trust and love for our neighbors. Trust amongst populations is fleeting and often dependent on the current political situation; it cannot be counted on, even improved on directly. We must develop trust on an individual, personal basis.
How is this to work? We distrust for a wide variety of reasons. We think that others want what we have, materially, interpersonally, or otherwise, and so they cannot be trusted with the safety of those things. We fear that others judge us and wish to change or otherwise shun us because we do not live up to their standards, so they cannot be trusted with our own well being. We judge others in turn, thinking that we are superior to them, so they cannot be trusted with our work. All these varieties of mistrust are so ingrained into our society that it in fact seems foolish not to look at each other with less than a cautious eye. How are we to reverse such a deeply held skepticism? Love.
That you snicker or roll your eyes is further evidence that this must be done. Why do we consider the concept of loving one another so cheesy, so romanticized and immaterial to practical discussions of current events? We consider it such a wonderful surprise when someone on the street simply smiles at us, and yet we are often incapable of the same effortless gesture, one which can improve another’s mood, by whatever amount. Maybe that smile is the difference between thanking the cashier at the grocer, furthering goodwill, or trudging off without any real human contact to speak of and leaving our cynical state unchanged. Maybe it’s the difference between being able to cope with a difficult child at home or not, berating them once more for less than perfect performance and imprinting an experience they will never forget. We have no idea how our actions, however large or small, will affect those around us, or how far they will go, so why aren’t we doing our very best to do good? The work of making humanity happier can be done on whatever scale we wish, whatever is most accessible or even convenient for us. There is no excuse not to do what we can, but we must do it with genuine love for each other.
Many of us agree that the Basic Problem is serious, and worth of addressing. Some do not, and they will be even harder to convince when the time comes. But for that first group, we must not settle simply on education and policy making. When the time comes, this preparation may not be enough to effect the change we need. With our species as misanthropic as it is, even the most benevolent, strictly managed efforts will be viewed with mistrust, unless we as humans can work to break down that cynicism which we seem to cherish so much. We are told to install and maintain “BS detectors”, and well we should, until we reach that point where we can trust one another implicitly. However, this must not prevent us from extending every good deed we can, directly in the face of another’s skepticism. We might say that teaching, warding against disaster, or devising policies for the world to benefit are just beyond our scope as individuals, but no one can say that being kind is too much. Every smile, assistance, comedic operatic performance we offer moves us towards a happier, more trusting world. Our efforts are done in a race against that which the Basic Problem warns; if we move quickly, we may outrun any intentional catastrophe and save ourselves the effort of rebuilding. And even if we do not, if catastrophe happens regardless, our efforts will ease that which follows, such that hopefully in the ensuing chaos, we can remember that by and large, we were decent to each other, and that we are worth trusting. Without that trust, we are doomed to repeat history over and over, but with it, we might be able to institute our first government of Earth, and reap the benefits thereof.
Bibliography
Chaloupka, Vladimir. “Science, the Basic Problem, and Human Security: What Is To Be Done?” University of Washington, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/bp.doc (accessed June 13, 2008).