I came across a very interesting phrase the other day – ‘tragedy of the commons’. I had never heard it before but apparently it refers to situations in which people, acting in their individual short term interests, make choices that are detrimental to society as a whole.
Referring to Wikipedia, which reads, inter alia: “The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).”
Now who doesn’t this statement apply to? Not many I suspect! How many people in influential positions such politicians; many bureaucrats; many investment bankers, quite a few businessmen and many others would have been, or are, involved in situations which could be termed ‘tragedies of the commons’?
This “tragedy of the commons’, could refer to the misuse of the public purse (a ‘common’ in that it belongs to us all) which is a finite resource. It could also refer to trust.
The first of two issues (totally divergent) in the Australian context which immediately spring to mind is the case of the misuse of public funds by the (now former) Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell. He admitted to using public funds (the ‘common’) to finance an affair – for which offence he has been sacked as minister. He misused a ‘common’, exploited it, for his own benefit. For this we all suffer because of the loss of funds (apparently re-paid) and also for the loss of trust that results from this ‘tragedy of the commons’. It raises the question, “What else has happened that we have not been told about?” This is a both a matter of ethics and morals or, as in this case, a lack thereof.
Secondly, in the Australian context, is the even worse situation relating to the postponement (cancellation?) of the much touted Emissions Trading Scheme. I suspect that vested (big business at the ‘top-end’ of town) were behind this tragedy. Australia (and the World) has finite resources in that potable water, good quality soil, creatures in the sea (and the quality of sea water itself) and forested areas (commons) are all at such low levels that any further diminution will seriously affect our quality of life. More of the same, without some concerted action, will cost us all a great deal more at some future date than any current implementation would ever cost.
This is, again, a matter of ethics and morals – or the lack thereof. Vested interests and short term financial and political expediency have resulted in this loss (hopefully only temporarily) of any carbon emissions control. Surely something is better than nothing? No one will ever get the perfect mix of controls, with such a massively complex matter as carbon reduction, at the first attempt. I believe it would be best to implement a reasonably well thought out scheme, acknowledge that it may have failings and leave sufficient ‘wriggle room’ to implement changes as they are seen to be necessary. This is indeed a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and again, we are all likely to suffer and to lose more than we currently contemplate.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Google and Australian censorship
I read in today’s media reports that Senator Stephen Conroy has an issue with Google over what can and cannot be shown over the internet. Apparently he wants Google and other search engine operators to introduce an ‘internet filter’ to limit access to certain sites.
He in reported to have said some of the material available (that he wants to be ‘filtered out’) “includes child sexual abuse material, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, instruction in crime and terrorist acts."
Now, personally, I would never choose to view such material – but that is my choice. If someone else chooses otherwise, even though I might question their moral compass, I respect their choice.
For the Australian Government, in the guise of Senator Conroy, to dictate what can or cannot be accessed on the internet is censorship – pure and simple censorship. This is just the thin edge of a very big wedge. Where will it end - don't want you to view an anti-governmet rally? Or how about reports unfavourable to the incumbent leader? Who decides what can and cannot be viewed and what redress is there?
The irony is that the Australian Government has commented (unfavourably) on the Chinese Government’s attempts to limit the access that Chinese citizens have on the internet using Google. Isn’t this precisely what Senator Conroy is trying to do to the citizen’s of this country??
He can't have it both ways. Talk about ethics!! Think about it.
He in reported to have said some of the material available (that he wants to be ‘filtered out’) “includes child sexual abuse material, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, instruction in crime and terrorist acts."
Now, personally, I would never choose to view such material – but that is my choice. If someone else chooses otherwise, even though I might question their moral compass, I respect their choice.
For the Australian Government, in the guise of Senator Conroy, to dictate what can or cannot be accessed on the internet is censorship – pure and simple censorship. This is just the thin edge of a very big wedge. Where will it end - don't want you to view an anti-governmet rally? Or how about reports unfavourable to the incumbent leader? Who decides what can and cannot be viewed and what redress is there?
The irony is that the Australian Government has commented (unfavourably) on the Chinese Government’s attempts to limit the access that Chinese citizens have on the internet using Google. Isn’t this precisely what Senator Conroy is trying to do to the citizen’s of this country??
He can't have it both ways. Talk about ethics!! Think about it.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Lies, damned lies and statistics!
To me the world has gone too far in requiring everything to be statistically proven before it is accepted as ‘true’. In this regard I would like to make a few general comments about statistics, particularly as applied and used in psychology.
I am studying statistics, via a subject called Research Methods 2, because I did Research Methods 1 and because the Psychology degree I am working towards demands that I should at least understand and be able to use some basic statistics. But I am a sceptic – I use statistics but I don’t really believe in them. You could say that I am an ‘agnostic’ when it comes to statistics. As a (hopefully) future worker in the field I swallow my agnosticism and constantly remind myself that the first responsibility of psychologists and people working in any of the social sciences or humanities is not to statistical accuracy but the well being of mankind - to happiness and health.
But then I need to consider the strong possibility (dare I use the word ‘probability’?) that my ‘agnosticism’ reflects the fact that I just do not enjoy the subject of statistics! I mean statistical reports give the impression of accuracy, of absolute fact, yet in reality there are phrases such as ‘differences may be due to sampling errors’ or ‘this cannot be answered definitively, but it can be evaluated in a statistical way’. This is short-hand for ‘what are the relative likelihoods of the opposing scenarios being important factors?” Or even mind bending statements that go like this: ‘Statistical decision making involves inductive inference. Based on a sample, we draw a conclusion about the population we think it was drawn from’ - if you get my drift! In reality, are statistics that important in the great scheme of things? Some people obviously believe in them but I don’t. Statistics may be useful indicators of something or pointers towards a solution but that is about as far as they (should) go.
While I have commented on this before, some repetition may be worthwhile. Statisticians tell me that it is a statistical probability that, being a male in a certain age group and with certain racial and physical characteristics and with certain religious beliefs, I will have certain likes and dislikes, be of a certain height, be overweight (even obese) and have this or that medical problem and that when presented with an ethical dilemma I will answer in this or that way. But I am not a ‘probability’ – I am a human being.
No doubt it is a great nuisance to statisticians and those who use their figures that mankind is not uniform but compounded of individuals with their own likes and dislikes and their own interpretation of events and situations. Statisticians (and others – politicians and such like) would like humanity to ‘conform’ to some easily defined standard or ‘norm’ but we don’t and pretending that we do is plain wrong – even a waste of time.
It must never be forgotten that the essence of every life is the fulfilment of the potential each is born with. All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and it is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of life.
To me there is a profound social process behind the figures used in the construction and evaluation of ‘scientific’ (read statistical) psychological data and that much of what we are ‘guided’ to do, as a consequence of an uncritical approach to statistics, relies on an ingenuous (mis)use of words that considers ‘facts’ as absolute certainty, as ‘true knowledge’, as ‘objective things’ beyond inference, question or reproach, and when information becomes ‘scientific’ merely because it is arranged and presented in a form that follows the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines, we are in deep trouble.
As to the constant push by many aspects of our society to conform, how about (a repeat)of the wonderful quote from the Indian sage, Krishnamurti, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” (from ‘All in the Mind’ by Merlin Donald)
Think about it.
I am studying statistics, via a subject called Research Methods 2, because I did Research Methods 1 and because the Psychology degree I am working towards demands that I should at least understand and be able to use some basic statistics. But I am a sceptic – I use statistics but I don’t really believe in them. You could say that I am an ‘agnostic’ when it comes to statistics. As a (hopefully) future worker in the field I swallow my agnosticism and constantly remind myself that the first responsibility of psychologists and people working in any of the social sciences or humanities is not to statistical accuracy but the well being of mankind - to happiness and health.
But then I need to consider the strong possibility (dare I use the word ‘probability’?) that my ‘agnosticism’ reflects the fact that I just do not enjoy the subject of statistics! I mean statistical reports give the impression of accuracy, of absolute fact, yet in reality there are phrases such as ‘differences may be due to sampling errors’ or ‘this cannot be answered definitively, but it can be evaluated in a statistical way’. This is short-hand for ‘what are the relative likelihoods of the opposing scenarios being important factors?” Or even mind bending statements that go like this: ‘Statistical decision making involves inductive inference. Based on a sample, we draw a conclusion about the population we think it was drawn from’ - if you get my drift! In reality, are statistics that important in the great scheme of things? Some people obviously believe in them but I don’t. Statistics may be useful indicators of something or pointers towards a solution but that is about as far as they (should) go.
While I have commented on this before, some repetition may be worthwhile. Statisticians tell me that it is a statistical probability that, being a male in a certain age group and with certain racial and physical characteristics and with certain religious beliefs, I will have certain likes and dislikes, be of a certain height, be overweight (even obese) and have this or that medical problem and that when presented with an ethical dilemma I will answer in this or that way. But I am not a ‘probability’ – I am a human being.
No doubt it is a great nuisance to statisticians and those who use their figures that mankind is not uniform but compounded of individuals with their own likes and dislikes and their own interpretation of events and situations. Statisticians (and others – politicians and such like) would like humanity to ‘conform’ to some easily defined standard or ‘norm’ but we don’t and pretending that we do is plain wrong – even a waste of time.
It must never be forgotten that the essence of every life is the fulfilment of the potential each is born with. All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and it is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of life.
To me there is a profound social process behind the figures used in the construction and evaluation of ‘scientific’ (read statistical) psychological data and that much of what we are ‘guided’ to do, as a consequence of an uncritical approach to statistics, relies on an ingenuous (mis)use of words that considers ‘facts’ as absolute certainty, as ‘true knowledge’, as ‘objective things’ beyond inference, question or reproach, and when information becomes ‘scientific’ merely because it is arranged and presented in a form that follows the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines, we are in deep trouble.
As to the constant push by many aspects of our society to conform, how about (a repeat)of the wonderful quote from the Indian sage, Krishnamurti, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” (from ‘All in the Mind’ by Merlin Donald)
Think about it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
What price freedom?
Injustice is just about the most corrosive effect known to man. That and hatred. These combined, as they often are, are a deadly cocktail. Injustice is the effect of hubris – someone, or a group of people thinking (believing) they are better than someone else (or another group) and using this “knowledge” to gain some unfair advantage or to exploit others for personal gain.
But then there is another kind which is more invasive and possibly more general, in that it is beginning to affect many more people. What I am talking about is the apparent injustice of so many rules, regulations and laws introduced to (allegedly) reduce crime and apprehend offenders.
We, as a Society, have got things all mixed up and up-side down. What got me thinking about this are the ‘safety features’ introduced at all ATMs. There are warnings to users to make sure there is no one looking on; to ensure they cover the key-pad with one hand while keying in their PIN and such like. I have nothing against these warnings but who are the people most affected and inconvenienced? We are! Normal people going about their lawful business.
The other side to these warnings are the extra security measures that are invading every aspect of our society. We have CCTV cameras all over the place in our cities (and sometimes in our offices and even, God forbid, in our homes); we are told (if we want our insurance premiums to be kept low) to have window locks; to have burglar proof screens on our windows; deadlocks on our doors; a home alarm system; to have alarms and immobilising devices fitted to our cars. We need personal identification numbers to access everything (or so it seems). Bus and taxi drivers are caged in to prevent attacks from drugged, drunk, angry or otherwise less than charitable passengers. Then think of all the checks that are imposed on us at airports nowadays – they have introduced full body x-ray ‘searches’ to see what (if anything) is hidden under clothing, at some airports. Our bags are inspected at supermarkets and police have the powers to (apparently) stop and search whom-so-ever they please. Again, who are the people most inconvenienced? We are!
Some cities have ‘no go’ areas where ‘normal’ people are discouraged from visiting. Then there are those walled and guarded estates with remote controlled gates and motion activated flood-lights that some of us like to live in.
Who is being inconvenienced? We are! Where is the privacy? Where is the freedom? It is almost as if the ‘good guys’ are in prison, or at least some claim to feel safe only when they are heavily guarded, gated compound, but yet the ‘bad guys’ are out there roaming free!
Something is really wrong here. We have lost that wonderful feeling of being carefree. Yes that is right – being free of care. Where now is the charm of a walk in the city, late on a cold moonlit night, when all is quiet (maybe!) and to see the world, quite literally in a different light – by moonlight, knowing that you may be considered a vagrant and be issued with a ‘move on’ notice? Where now is the pleasure of sleeping with the widows open on a balmy summer’s night and being cooled by the breeze, knowing that there is a possibility you may be burgled? Where now is the pleasure of smiling at a child and having the smile returned, without having the child’s mother look at you suspiciously as a possible paedophile?
I could go on in this vein for a long time but I am sure you get the idea. We are being pushed and pulled and squeezed into a box that is ‘safe’, always under observation, always under guard or being guarded against. How much more of this must we put up with? I am sure it is not doing anything to improve our ‘collective’ mental health – according the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately one in five (yes 1 in 5) people will have some sort of mental health issue during their life! That is an astonishing figure but I am not sure what the solution is.
This is the injustice I am talking about.
As I said before I am not sure what the solution is because as the Indian sage Krishnamurti once said, 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society'.
But then there is another kind which is more invasive and possibly more general, in that it is beginning to affect many more people. What I am talking about is the apparent injustice of so many rules, regulations and laws introduced to (allegedly) reduce crime and apprehend offenders.
We, as a Society, have got things all mixed up and up-side down. What got me thinking about this are the ‘safety features’ introduced at all ATMs. There are warnings to users to make sure there is no one looking on; to ensure they cover the key-pad with one hand while keying in their PIN and such like. I have nothing against these warnings but who are the people most affected and inconvenienced? We are! Normal people going about their lawful business.
The other side to these warnings are the extra security measures that are invading every aspect of our society. We have CCTV cameras all over the place in our cities (and sometimes in our offices and even, God forbid, in our homes); we are told (if we want our insurance premiums to be kept low) to have window locks; to have burglar proof screens on our windows; deadlocks on our doors; a home alarm system; to have alarms and immobilising devices fitted to our cars. We need personal identification numbers to access everything (or so it seems). Bus and taxi drivers are caged in to prevent attacks from drugged, drunk, angry or otherwise less than charitable passengers. Then think of all the checks that are imposed on us at airports nowadays – they have introduced full body x-ray ‘searches’ to see what (if anything) is hidden under clothing, at some airports. Our bags are inspected at supermarkets and police have the powers to (apparently) stop and search whom-so-ever they please. Again, who are the people most inconvenienced? We are!
Some cities have ‘no go’ areas where ‘normal’ people are discouraged from visiting. Then there are those walled and guarded estates with remote controlled gates and motion activated flood-lights that some of us like to live in.
Who is being inconvenienced? We are! Where is the privacy? Where is the freedom? It is almost as if the ‘good guys’ are in prison, or at least some claim to feel safe only when they are heavily guarded, gated compound, but yet the ‘bad guys’ are out there roaming free!
Something is really wrong here. We have lost that wonderful feeling of being carefree. Yes that is right – being free of care. Where now is the charm of a walk in the city, late on a cold moonlit night, when all is quiet (maybe!) and to see the world, quite literally in a different light – by moonlight, knowing that you may be considered a vagrant and be issued with a ‘move on’ notice? Where now is the pleasure of sleeping with the widows open on a balmy summer’s night and being cooled by the breeze, knowing that there is a possibility you may be burgled? Where now is the pleasure of smiling at a child and having the smile returned, without having the child’s mother look at you suspiciously as a possible paedophile?
I could go on in this vein for a long time but I am sure you get the idea. We are being pushed and pulled and squeezed into a box that is ‘safe’, always under observation, always under guard or being guarded against. How much more of this must we put up with? I am sure it is not doing anything to improve our ‘collective’ mental health – according the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately one in five (yes 1 in 5) people will have some sort of mental health issue during their life! That is an astonishing figure but I am not sure what the solution is.
This is the injustice I am talking about.
As I said before I am not sure what the solution is because as the Indian sage Krishnamurti once said, 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society'.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Israels Moral Army
There was a report the other day about why the Israelis rejected the UN report into their ‘invasion’ of Gaza last year. They are alleged to have said that because Israel has the most ‘moral’ army in the world, what others stated were ‘war crimes’ committed by the Israeli Army could not and would not have happened. They have also stated before that they have the most ‘ethical’ army in the world.
Now one thing I have learned in life is that as soon as anyone starts making presumptuous or sanctimonious statements indicating a belief that they are ‘better’ or as in this case (presumably more) ‘moral’ that anyone else they are inviting Nemeses to cut them back down to size. There is one thing that Nemeses dislikes more than anything else and that is ‘hubris’. I have written about this before and risking accusations of repetition I restate the following:-
“So whole-hearted is the faith in technological idols that it is very hard to discover, in the popular thoughts of our time, any trace of the ancient and profoundly realistic doctrine of Hubris and Nemesis. To the (Ancient) Greeks, Hubris meant any kind of over-weening and excess. When men or societies went too far, either in dominating other men and societies, or in exploiting the resources of nature to their own advantage, this over-weening exhibition of pride had to be paid for. In a word, Hubris invited Nemesis.” (Aldous Huxley - Essay on ‘New Forms of Idolatry’ 1945).
This still rings true today, from its ancient classical, origins. [‘hubris’ … Presumption; insolence (originally towards the Gods); pride; excessive self confidence. ‘Nemesis’ …The Goddess of retribution and vengeance]. Nemesis was perceived to be the personification of the retribution which appears to overtake every wrong. She was conceived as a mysterious power, watching over the propriety of life, shaping the demeanour of men in times of prosperity, punishing crime, taking luck away from the unworthy, tracking every wrong to its doer, and keeping society in equipoise. Nemesis was/is said to be implacable in the pursuit of her cause.
If the Israelis (or the Americans or anyone else for that matter) think for a moment that force of arms on its own solves problems they are sadly mistaken. It never has and it never will. Any force has to be accompanied by magnanimity to the ‘defeated’. I am not sure that the Israelis understand the meaning of the word ‘magnanimity’. They have done nothing to help the unfortunate inhabitants of Gaza – in fact they are just keeping up the unequal pressure.
It has to be remembered that only a person can be moral or ethical. Morals and ethics have to do with the interrelationships between human beings. An army, on the other hand, cannot be moral or ethical. An army being an organisation of people who are trained to kill, does not have a life of its own. Ethical conduct can only take place between humans and other sentient beings. The Israeli army may have a code of ethics and instruct its soldiers about moral conduct but under the pressure of war, when it is a case of kill or be killed, anything can and does happen. In any case I am not sure that anyone can be killed in a morally ‘correct’ manner or killed ‘ethically.’
Nothing the Israeli’s have done addresses the original cause of the ‘Palestinian problem’ – injustice; the injustice of having their hereditary land expropriated (without consultation or compensation) to create the State of Israel in 1946. Building a wall dividing Palestine from Israel; having state of the art weaponry does nothing if the original injustice and the sense of injustice is not addressed in a meaningful manner – not just talking about talking. The Israelis will never feel secure while the Palestinians feel deprived, humiliated and treated as second class citizens.
The Israelis (and the Palestinians) must learn, or remember, that violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. So where does that place the Israeli army or Hamas?
Think about it.
Now one thing I have learned in life is that as soon as anyone starts making presumptuous or sanctimonious statements indicating a belief that they are ‘better’ or as in this case (presumably more) ‘moral’ that anyone else they are inviting Nemeses to cut them back down to size. There is one thing that Nemeses dislikes more than anything else and that is ‘hubris’. I have written about this before and risking accusations of repetition I restate the following:-
“So whole-hearted is the faith in technological idols that it is very hard to discover, in the popular thoughts of our time, any trace of the ancient and profoundly realistic doctrine of Hubris and Nemesis. To the (Ancient) Greeks, Hubris meant any kind of over-weening and excess. When men or societies went too far, either in dominating other men and societies, or in exploiting the resources of nature to their own advantage, this over-weening exhibition of pride had to be paid for. In a word, Hubris invited Nemesis.” (Aldous Huxley - Essay on ‘New Forms of Idolatry’ 1945).
This still rings true today, from its ancient classical, origins. [‘hubris’ … Presumption; insolence (originally towards the Gods); pride; excessive self confidence. ‘Nemesis’ …The Goddess of retribution and vengeance]. Nemesis was perceived to be the personification of the retribution which appears to overtake every wrong. She was conceived as a mysterious power, watching over the propriety of life, shaping the demeanour of men in times of prosperity, punishing crime, taking luck away from the unworthy, tracking every wrong to its doer, and keeping society in equipoise. Nemesis was/is said to be implacable in the pursuit of her cause.
If the Israelis (or the Americans or anyone else for that matter) think for a moment that force of arms on its own solves problems they are sadly mistaken. It never has and it never will. Any force has to be accompanied by magnanimity to the ‘defeated’. I am not sure that the Israelis understand the meaning of the word ‘magnanimity’. They have done nothing to help the unfortunate inhabitants of Gaza – in fact they are just keeping up the unequal pressure.
It has to be remembered that only a person can be moral or ethical. Morals and ethics have to do with the interrelationships between human beings. An army, on the other hand, cannot be moral or ethical. An army being an organisation of people who are trained to kill, does not have a life of its own. Ethical conduct can only take place between humans and other sentient beings. The Israeli army may have a code of ethics and instruct its soldiers about moral conduct but under the pressure of war, when it is a case of kill or be killed, anything can and does happen. In any case I am not sure that anyone can be killed in a morally ‘correct’ manner or killed ‘ethically.’
Nothing the Israeli’s have done addresses the original cause of the ‘Palestinian problem’ – injustice; the injustice of having their hereditary land expropriated (without consultation or compensation) to create the State of Israel in 1946. Building a wall dividing Palestine from Israel; having state of the art weaponry does nothing if the original injustice and the sense of injustice is not addressed in a meaningful manner – not just talking about talking. The Israelis will never feel secure while the Palestinians feel deprived, humiliated and treated as second class citizens.
The Israelis (and the Palestinians) must learn, or remember, that violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. So where does that place the Israeli army or Hamas?
Think about it.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Selling the Factory
It seems almost impossible to buy something nowadays that is NOT made in China. This may or may not be a good thing – depending on one’s point of view. It is certainly beneficial to China but how about the rest of us? There are inherent dangers in just looking at the ‘bottom line’, being influenced solely by the profit motive.
To me there are a number of problems that arise by sending all manufacturing off shore (to China):
• Loss of control. This loss is really a quality matter, certainly from a consumers point of view. For instance I, personally, would never knowingly buy anything from China which contains any milk products (after the melamine contamination scandal). Now there is Google’s controversy with the Chinese authorities.
• Confusion. As a consumer I am sometimes confused when I reach to purchase an item (principally a food item) which has a familiar ‘Australian’ name, only to find that it is either ‘Made in China’ or ‘Packed in Australia from imported products’. This last piece of information means ‘China’ as far as I am concerned.
• Wariness. I am very wary of Chinese assurances (or the assurances of Australian companies operating in China) that ‘wrong doers’ will be brought to justice and any lapses in quality will be dealt with accordingly. We all know that the Chinese judiciary is not independent but is State controlled (vide the Rio Tinto imbroglio with their Head of Operations in China being held in jail on charges of ‘industrial espionage’ and bribery). We all know that there are major issues with endemic corruption in all level of Chinese Government and business. These facts do not inspire my confidence in any degree.
• The other problem I have with the Chinese is that China is not a ‘friendly’ nation. By this I mean that they are not (yet) willing participants in World Events without throwing their (new found) weight around; that they are not an ‘open’ people but are actually very secretive; that they are ‘different’ and must be treated as such.
• Also, would China ever hold the rest of the world to ransom?
Much of what I say is, I know, a result of history. China, in the 18th and 19th Centuries, was treated very badly by the ‘West’, Britain in particular. There were the ‘opium wars’ and in general trade the Chinese were screwed by the Brits and other nations who wanted their tea, jade, silk and other products. Also as a colonial power the Brits took Hong Kong (ostensibly it was ‘ceded’) after the Chinese defeat in the ‘Opium Wars. Then of course there was the ferocious and unnecessarily barbaric invasion of what was then called Manchuria by the Japanese in 1931 and the infamous ‘Rape of Nanking’. The effects of all this still rankle and certainly influences the Chinese view of the ‘West’ (including Japan).
The Chinese have a point. They have been treated unjustly in the past and nothing festers as much as an unresolved injustice – no matter when it happened (I have written before about the injustice relating to Palestine and Israel). I suppose it could be said that they have learned from ‘us’ – and learned very well!
To get back to my original reason for writing this – by giving the Chinese the industrial muscle that is now evident (and the accompanying financial ‘muscle’) are we in danger of being held to ransom? Would China ever try to control events or countries by parcelling out favours, as it were – a little bit of money here a few goods there – to those who toed the line? They could but would they? Some countries would say the same about America – they would (with some justification) say that the Americans have done just that for generations. I suppose the Brits did it before the Americans and the Romans and Greeks before them even. But then these are (or were) all from Hellenic/Roman/Judeo/Christian heritage, which we sort of understand.
Is it really worthwhile selling the ‘factory’ to the Chinese (or any other ‘stranger’ nation) rather than trying to keep it at home where everyone knows everyone and things are familiar? Or does it all come down to ‘money’ and how much more profit would be made by transferring operations ‘off-shore’?
Now that there is a shift in the World Power dynamics I suppose I have to get used to the change and like it or lump it. But is will not be easy and I reserve the right to be wary about the quality of some products made in China (or elsewhere for that matter). The other side of this is to ask yourself the question, “Would the Chinese like it (or allow) others to take over their industries, to buy their factories?” Somehow I don’t think so.
I know that I am going to be accused of racism – but I actually have a great deal of respect and liking for the Chinese – believe it or not!!
To me there are a number of problems that arise by sending all manufacturing off shore (to China):
• Loss of control. This loss is really a quality matter, certainly from a consumers point of view. For instance I, personally, would never knowingly buy anything from China which contains any milk products (after the melamine contamination scandal). Now there is Google’s controversy with the Chinese authorities.
• Confusion. As a consumer I am sometimes confused when I reach to purchase an item (principally a food item) which has a familiar ‘Australian’ name, only to find that it is either ‘Made in China’ or ‘Packed in Australia from imported products’. This last piece of information means ‘China’ as far as I am concerned.
• Wariness. I am very wary of Chinese assurances (or the assurances of Australian companies operating in China) that ‘wrong doers’ will be brought to justice and any lapses in quality will be dealt with accordingly. We all know that the Chinese judiciary is not independent but is State controlled (vide the Rio Tinto imbroglio with their Head of Operations in China being held in jail on charges of ‘industrial espionage’ and bribery). We all know that there are major issues with endemic corruption in all level of Chinese Government and business. These facts do not inspire my confidence in any degree.
• The other problem I have with the Chinese is that China is not a ‘friendly’ nation. By this I mean that they are not (yet) willing participants in World Events without throwing their (new found) weight around; that they are not an ‘open’ people but are actually very secretive; that they are ‘different’ and must be treated as such.
• Also, would China ever hold the rest of the world to ransom?
Much of what I say is, I know, a result of history. China, in the 18th and 19th Centuries, was treated very badly by the ‘West’, Britain in particular. There were the ‘opium wars’ and in general trade the Chinese were screwed by the Brits and other nations who wanted their tea, jade, silk and other products. Also as a colonial power the Brits took Hong Kong (ostensibly it was ‘ceded’) after the Chinese defeat in the ‘Opium Wars. Then of course there was the ferocious and unnecessarily barbaric invasion of what was then called Manchuria by the Japanese in 1931 and the infamous ‘Rape of Nanking’. The effects of all this still rankle and certainly influences the Chinese view of the ‘West’ (including Japan).
The Chinese have a point. They have been treated unjustly in the past and nothing festers as much as an unresolved injustice – no matter when it happened (I have written before about the injustice relating to Palestine and Israel). I suppose it could be said that they have learned from ‘us’ – and learned very well!
To get back to my original reason for writing this – by giving the Chinese the industrial muscle that is now evident (and the accompanying financial ‘muscle’) are we in danger of being held to ransom? Would China ever try to control events or countries by parcelling out favours, as it were – a little bit of money here a few goods there – to those who toed the line? They could but would they? Some countries would say the same about America – they would (with some justification) say that the Americans have done just that for generations. I suppose the Brits did it before the Americans and the Romans and Greeks before them even. But then these are (or were) all from Hellenic/Roman/Judeo/Christian heritage, which we sort of understand.
Is it really worthwhile selling the ‘factory’ to the Chinese (or any other ‘stranger’ nation) rather than trying to keep it at home where everyone knows everyone and things are familiar? Or does it all come down to ‘money’ and how much more profit would be made by transferring operations ‘off-shore’?
Now that there is a shift in the World Power dynamics I suppose I have to get used to the change and like it or lump it. But is will not be easy and I reserve the right to be wary about the quality of some products made in China (or elsewhere for that matter). The other side of this is to ask yourself the question, “Would the Chinese like it (or allow) others to take over their industries, to buy their factories?” Somehow I don’t think so.
I know that I am going to be accused of racism – but I actually have a great deal of respect and liking for the Chinese – believe it or not!!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Mental illness - barking (mad) up the wrong tree
This is a new one for me! Not a thought in my head (worth writing about, that is) but I am writing all the same.
Take the way most of us look at life! A great deal of disharmony and general unhappiness in life generally arises because we, again generally, don’t understand how life works. Taking a ‘mechanistic’ view of life gives rise to many misconceptions. We buy things and do things because they bring us comfort or pleasure. We then take this same thought process and apply it to all aspects of our lives. We have this belief that buying something new will make us happy. We tend to use ‘retail therapy’ to solve our problems, or try to solve them. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach to life – in fact it is a necessary facet of life in the 21st Century. Trouble is, this approach is not always as effective as we would hope or expect, is it?
We are a whole lot more than the molecules that constitute the 50 billion or so cells that make up each of our bodies. We have sense impressions; we have thoughts and ideas; we have emotions that somehow are all derived from these self same molecules and cells. Now, I cannot believe that a bunch of (originally) inanimate substances, which I might add will return to their inanimate state at the time of my (hopefully lamented) death, constitute all that I call ‘Life’ and ‘Living’. There is something else, something that animates the collection of cells. This of course applies to all things that we observe to be ‘alive’, be it a plant, an animal, insect, amoeba or any other form of ‘life’.
This ‘matter’ of ‘Life’ gets even more confusing if we delve deeper and enter the realm of quantum physics (about which I know very, very little) which states that matter = energy and that energy = matter (remember E=MC2?). If this is true where does this leave ‘life’? How can energy be animated? What is ‘dead’ energy (i.e. some matter which was alive and is now dead) compared to ‘live’ energy (i.e. some matter which is animated and alive)? Nobody knows.
In all this the human brain remains a lump of gray matter, alive but without any sense of touch (it has no pain receptors so feels no pain) it is a processor - like the mother board in a computer. Basically it processes the information it receives from the body’s senses – it cannot do things for itself; it cannot tell itself what to think.
"As the scientist Gerald Edelman has pointed out, the human cortex alone has 30 billion neurons and is capable of making 1 billion synaptic connections. Edelman writes, 'if we consider the number of possible neural circuits, we would be dealing with hyper-astronomical numbers: 10 followed by at least a million zeros, (there are 10 followed by 79 zeros, give or take a few, of particles in the known universe).' These staggering numbers explain why the human brain can be described as the most complex known object in the universe, and why it is capable of ongoing, massive microconstructural change, and capable of performing so many different mental functions and behaviours, including our different cultural activities." (Norman Doige, 2007, “The brain that changes itself” p294).
Wonderful as the brain is, it is not the ‘mind’. As I have said on other occasions there seems to be something ‘behind’ or ‘above’ or ‘superior’ to the brain that promotes thoughts, ideas, emotions and concepts – call it ‘Life’, or ‘Consciousness’ or whatever – something exists to make something ‘alive’.
All this gets me to where I was going when I started writing – that we are more than the body; that our mind is more than the brain. So it worries me when people either pump themselves full or are pumped full of ‘mind altering’ drugs to ‘cure’ a mental illness (this is the ‘mechanistic’ approach). To me an illness is something which affects the body in a manner which can be verified – such as measles, Aids or cancer or a diseased organ (liver, kidney etc). An illness is something that happens to a person which can be tested pathologically. What is called a ‘mental illness’, to me, is something which is judged or assumed to be as such, because of what people do – there is no known pathological test for a ‘mental illness’. This is a big difference. So it worries me when I read in various documents published by the Western Australian Government’s Chief Psychiatrist regarding ‘treatment for this supposed ‘mental illness’ that:
“The psychiatrist’s decision to make you an involuntary patient will be based on his or her opinion of whether or not you have a mental illness. A Mental Illness is defined in the Western Australian Mental Health Act (1996) as:
‘a disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception, orientation or memory that impairs judgement or behaviour to a significant extent’.”
My comment:
How in God's name can this 'definition' be described as defining an illness and from who's view point? That of the psychiatrist? How does he/she know WHY a person may think the way he or she does?
What is a disturbance of thought? And what is a 'disturbance ... to a significant extent? How much is significant? Who decides this? What is normal and who determines any variance from ‘normal’?
Many of us have moments of impaired judgement - no one is perfect!
The ‘treatment’ for this so called ‘mental illness’ may involve the voluntary (or involuntary) consumption of brain altering drugs. This really bothers me particularly when the following warning is thoughtfully provided by the Chief Psychiatrist at the end of his various publications (remember the treatment is supposed to cure the ‘illness!!):
“ FDA Product Information Warning
Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviors has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.
Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.”
I really don’t think they know what they are doing and I don't believe this is ethical! Being an ‘involuntary’ patient must be an awful experience – worse than jail – and to have brain altering drugs forced down ones throat!
Take the way most of us look at life! A great deal of disharmony and general unhappiness in life generally arises because we, again generally, don’t understand how life works. Taking a ‘mechanistic’ view of life gives rise to many misconceptions. We buy things and do things because they bring us comfort or pleasure. We then take this same thought process and apply it to all aspects of our lives. We have this belief that buying something new will make us happy. We tend to use ‘retail therapy’ to solve our problems, or try to solve them. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach to life – in fact it is a necessary facet of life in the 21st Century. Trouble is, this approach is not always as effective as we would hope or expect, is it?
We are a whole lot more than the molecules that constitute the 50 billion or so cells that make up each of our bodies. We have sense impressions; we have thoughts and ideas; we have emotions that somehow are all derived from these self same molecules and cells. Now, I cannot believe that a bunch of (originally) inanimate substances, which I might add will return to their inanimate state at the time of my (hopefully lamented) death, constitute all that I call ‘Life’ and ‘Living’. There is something else, something that animates the collection of cells. This of course applies to all things that we observe to be ‘alive’, be it a plant, an animal, insect, amoeba or any other form of ‘life’.
This ‘matter’ of ‘Life’ gets even more confusing if we delve deeper and enter the realm of quantum physics (about which I know very, very little) which states that matter = energy and that energy = matter (remember E=MC2?). If this is true where does this leave ‘life’? How can energy be animated? What is ‘dead’ energy (i.e. some matter which was alive and is now dead) compared to ‘live’ energy (i.e. some matter which is animated and alive)? Nobody knows.
In all this the human brain remains a lump of gray matter, alive but without any sense of touch (it has no pain receptors so feels no pain) it is a processor - like the mother board in a computer. Basically it processes the information it receives from the body’s senses – it cannot do things for itself; it cannot tell itself what to think.
"As the scientist Gerald Edelman has pointed out, the human cortex alone has 30 billion neurons and is capable of making 1 billion synaptic connections. Edelman writes, 'if we consider the number of possible neural circuits, we would be dealing with hyper-astronomical numbers: 10 followed by at least a million zeros, (there are 10 followed by 79 zeros, give or take a few, of particles in the known universe).' These staggering numbers explain why the human brain can be described as the most complex known object in the universe, and why it is capable of ongoing, massive microconstructural change, and capable of performing so many different mental functions and behaviours, including our different cultural activities." (Norman Doige, 2007, “The brain that changes itself” p294).
Wonderful as the brain is, it is not the ‘mind’. As I have said on other occasions there seems to be something ‘behind’ or ‘above’ or ‘superior’ to the brain that promotes thoughts, ideas, emotions and concepts – call it ‘Life’, or ‘Consciousness’ or whatever – something exists to make something ‘alive’.
All this gets me to where I was going when I started writing – that we are more than the body; that our mind is more than the brain. So it worries me when people either pump themselves full or are pumped full of ‘mind altering’ drugs to ‘cure’ a mental illness (this is the ‘mechanistic’ approach). To me an illness is something which affects the body in a manner which can be verified – such as measles, Aids or cancer or a diseased organ (liver, kidney etc). An illness is something that happens to a person which can be tested pathologically. What is called a ‘mental illness’, to me, is something which is judged or assumed to be as such, because of what people do – there is no known pathological test for a ‘mental illness’. This is a big difference. So it worries me when I read in various documents published by the Western Australian Government’s Chief Psychiatrist regarding ‘treatment for this supposed ‘mental illness’ that:
“The psychiatrist’s decision to make you an involuntary patient will be based on his or her opinion of whether or not you have a mental illness. A Mental Illness is defined in the Western Australian Mental Health Act (1996) as:
‘a disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception, orientation or memory that impairs judgement or behaviour to a significant extent’.”
My comment:
How in God's name can this 'definition' be described as defining an illness and from who's view point? That of the psychiatrist? How does he/she know WHY a person may think the way he or she does?
What is a disturbance of thought? And what is a 'disturbance ... to a significant extent? How much is significant? Who decides this? What is normal and who determines any variance from ‘normal’?
Many of us have moments of impaired judgement - no one is perfect!
The ‘treatment’ for this so called ‘mental illness’ may involve the voluntary (or involuntary) consumption of brain altering drugs. This really bothers me particularly when the following warning is thoughtfully provided by the Chief Psychiatrist at the end of his various publications (remember the treatment is supposed to cure the ‘illness!!):
“ FDA Product Information Warning
Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviors has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.
Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.”
I really don’t think they know what they are doing and I don't believe this is ethical! Being an ‘involuntary’ patient must be an awful experience – worse than jail – and to have brain altering drugs forced down ones throat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)