Isaac Asimov, mass action, and Jared Diamond

In 1951 classic science fiction writer Isaac Asimov published the first novel in his groundbreaking Foundation series. In this novel, a group of scientists preserve knowledge as the civilization around them collapses. They are encouraged by messages left in a time capsule by a sociologist/mathematician who was able to predict the future using the laws of mass action. This sociologist was able to create models to predict mankind’s actions over long periods of time. The idea was that it is impossible to predict specific events, but it is possible to foresee the general course of history.

Of course, this begs the question: Is it really possible?  Does our history follow a particular pattern, and can we apply this pattern to the future?

To answer this, we must first look back at our past. For most of our history, humanity consisted of small, nomadic tribes who survived by hunting and gathering plants for food. During this time, our history was very predictable. The population of each tribe was balanced by the fact that a tribe that was either too small a tribe or too large could not survive. Disease, starvation and violent death also kept our population in check. Our movements were predictable, since it was necessary to move from area to area because we could only gather a certain amount of food per hectare before it was time to move on. The types of societies we lived in did not very much—none were very large or had any kind of centralized government. Technology remained stagnant, and apart from weather and climate there were no significant random factors.

However, around a few thousand years B.C. there was a huge shift in the course of human history. According to Jared Diamond, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel, the reason was agriculture. Around this time agriculture began to evolve, and everything changed. According to the book (of which I am a huge fan), agriculture made societies sedentary and allowed for specialization because of the increased amount of food produced. This led to larger populations, more complex societies, government, and labor. Now societies had soldiers, leaders, craftsmen, and, most importantly, inventors. Society allowed for technology to increase, and technology, as we will see, became the factor that most influenced the path of history.

According to Diamond, societies with agriculture proceeded to destroy or subjugate those without it. They do this by using guns, germs, and steel, all of which stemmed from agriculture. However, though Diamond is correct in saying that technology would not have increased so rapidly (if at all) without agriculture, he ignores the random factors involved in the way that technology affects history. In Guns, Germs, and Steel Diamond supports social determinism, the belief that technology’s use is determined by culture.

However, he ignores the fact that cultures are changed by technology, and that cultures change very rapidly with respect to history. For example, though the telephone was initially rejected, once it became widely accepted, it had profound effects on our culture. Though culture determines if an invention is put to use, that invention may have the unintended effect of changing the culture drastically. Furthermore, technology does not increase at a constant rate. Believers in the concept of the technological singularity assert that technology advances in an exponential curve, but recent evidence has shown that this is not exactly the case. This is probably because technology is also influenced by economic, social, and environmental factors.

Furthermore, in modern history the economy has an enormous role in deciding the path of history. Currently, mathematics and economics have not evolved to the point where we can accurately predict the direction the economy is going to go. This is because modern economics are highly complicated, and, as economists often forget, the economy is influenced by the environment and the distribution of natural resources. Since we do not understand the impact the spread of resources has on the economy and we do not know where the natural resources of the future are located or even what they are, we have no way of predicting the economy many years from now. 

Even if were could accurately predict the general pattern the economy, history is not predictable in the short term (say, decades or centuries) because the growth of technology is unpredictable. If we were to look in the long term, (long enough for the increase of technology to be roughly a parabola) we would run into other problems: Climate change affects history in the long term, and current models are not sufficient to predict the climate thousands or tens of thousands of years from now. Next, remember that “modern” history has only existed for about five thousand years—this is not enough data to use to predict the next hundred thousand years. 

If you need even more evidence, chaos theory is looking better and better—and if minor occurrences can change the course of history, as the theory suggests, predicting human history using the laws of mass action is completely impossible. 

Beyond FDR

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is widely considered the best US President in history for his handling of the Great Depression and WWII. He is ranked up with Washington, Jefferson, and Madison as the “great presidents” of history. Today, we are almost on the edge of our seats because of the suspenseful buildup of our current economic crisis. Our only hope, we say, is another FDR, another “great president.”

But we must ask the question: Is there such thing as a great president anymore? To answer this we must also ask: What makes a president great? 

Let’s tackle the second question first. In American history, the presidents who are remembered most are the strong ones—Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Lincoln, and Kennedy. All of these presidents were highly influential and powerful people who believed in a strong Presidential role. No one remembers Grant, Taft, or Pierce because they were passive and did little to change history. Today, a strong president might be worse off than a weak one—George Bush Jr. favored a strong presidential role, but his approval rating will probably never reach 30% again.

Also, remember that the media often determines how people view a leader. All of the presidents we consider great had the media on their side—in fact, a group of reporters mugged and destroyed the film of a photographer who took a picture of FDR in his wheelchair. Today, though, our media has become very politically charged. No president could possibly please both the Democratic and Republican parties, so either the liberal or conservative media will slander them. This will mean that when looking back, future generations will find negative opinions on any president and therefore be less likely to regard that person as “great.”

However, there is still some hope for greatness. If our next president—regardless of whether he is Barack Obama or John McCain—can resolve the economic crisis and improve America’s image abroad, he will be highly regarded and praised for saving the country. Beyond that, though, there is little a president can do to achieve immortal greatness. In today’s uncertain and controversial times, you can’t please everyone. 

1984 vs. Brave New World

This is something of a follow-up to my post on Brave New World. You may have been wondering: what happens if we look at George Orwell’s 1984 in the same way? If we evaluate them by the same criteria, is the result the same, or different?

We must remember that Oceania in 1894 is very different from the World State in Brave New World. The World State ensures order by painless social conditioning; in 1984, the government insures order by importuning each and every citizen with questions, inspection, and most important, fear. As Neil Postman put it:

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Recall that happiness was one of our most important criteria in assessing BNW. This is the most important difference between the two—1984 relies on fear and hate to keep the system running—the World State does not. In BNW, each caste is happy where they are, and the society is maintained with positive feedback. In 1984, though the Inner Party is satisfied, the Outer Party lives in perpetual fear, and the Proles are impoverished, maudlin, and depressed.

Also, the economy in 1984, though balanced, does not provide enough food or goods for its citizens—many people do not have enough to eat, and there is constantly shortage of something. Because of this, 1984 ranks far lower than BNW overall.

However, 1984 does not fail the second piece of criteria we used when judging BNW. Both societies are relatively stable and are far from being on the verge of collapse. This, however, is outweighed by the aforementioned negative qualities—if anything, having longevity only make 1984 worse, since it means that the society will be forever trapped in this sadistic phase.

Many would also argue that 1984 is a dystopia because of its excessive use of brainwashing. However, brainwashing is not inherently evil in and of itself. In 1984, though, it is painful and barbaric, whereas in BNW the social conditioning is almost painless and is relatively subtle.

To conclude—because it encourages perpetual war, confusion, and bigotry, 1894’s Oceania is clearly a dystopia. Though it is just as stable as BNW, it is not ideal because it does not provide happiness and security for its citizens. 

Federalists in space

When we think of space colonization, we think of stereotypical space-opera heroes, evil alien races, individualistic pioneer societies, and terrifying space pirates commandeering spaceships. Why? Because that is the image that classic science fiction drilled into our heads more than 50 years ago. Contemporary science fiction writers continued the tradition and kept writing about these Wild Wests in space.

However, I suspect that if classic SF legends like Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein were around today, they would portray space colonization very differently. I think that space exploration will not be like the pioneer-like picture painted by these authors—it will far more federal and centralized.

The main reason is the high cost of space travel, and the slow rate that its cost decreases.Obviously, space colonization will not exist until it becomes cost-effective—but it may not become very cost-effective for many years after that. Because of this, the average “Joe six-pack” or ingénue city-dwelling single mother will not be rocketing him/herself and family to start a colony. Instead, space colonization and exploration will have to be funded by large governments. This will mean that it will also be controlled regulated by large governments, unlike the pioneer societies of the past.

Secondly, the technology required to colonize other planets is immense. Again, the average person will not have the means or the money to create or even buy the necessary equipment. This is because all of the planets discovered so far have no breathable atmosphere, which suggests that there are few Earth-like planets in the galaxy. Thus, the necessary technology must be invented and built to create livable environments in these areas.

Next, recall that space travel and colonization will probably not be productive for many years. In the future, the world will probably have more federal governments than it does today (if not one world-controlling federal government), or corporations will have enormous political power (enabling them to initiate space travel). If this does not occur, space colonization will probably not happen, because in a less centralized society no one would be able to afford it. This federalism will determine how the colonies are regulated—they will be government-controlled and centralized rather than pioneer societies.

On a related note, governments would not want their colonies to become too independent. They would insure that the colonies would be unable to declare their independence by ensuring that they, not their colonies, control technology. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing—not all governments will treat their colonies poorly, so there will be little need for them to exercise their power.

However, all this is probably for the better. It will mean that these colonies will progress more quickly and be more productive than if they were pioneer societies.

As for pirates in space…the chances of space marauders existing are very, very low. Most of today’s pirates do what they do out of desperation—for example, the Somalian pirates who stole Ukrainian tanks as they passed by on a cargo ship. But piracy in space would require huge amounts of funding, as a large amount of sophisticated equipment is needed. Also, space piracy may not even be possible—in order to travel to places that are light-years away, spacecraft would have to travel faster than light or “jump” from place to place—making piracy impossible. Finally, who would these pirates sell their stolen goods to?

To summarize—I hate to burst Robert A. Heinlein’s bubble, but it seems like the governors of colonies in space will be rich, well-mannered, elitist epicures rather than pioneer types or “average Joes”. 

Apocalypse now (maybe)

I recently found out the next book in a science fiction series I have been reading has been published. The series is called the Emberverse series, the author is S.M. Stirling, and the first book is Dies the Fire.

The basic premise is that all technology stops working, sending the world back to the Stone Age. The book talks about how 99% of the world dies within a year, because the loss of technology causes anarchy and prevents people from getting food. Since most people, especially city dwellers and suburbanites, do not have their own source of food or potable water, they starve when the system collapses.

After this gritty, chaotic time, though, a more halcyon period begins, as only a small percentage of the population is left (though some small pockets of violence still exist). The book goes on to describe what happens to these remaining people, who are mostly people who live in rural areas and who are not as dependent on centralized food production. Specifically, it follows the pursuits a few tribe-like societies and their plight to defeat a would-be warlord and his ex-gangster minions. A few characters from Stirling’s other book series, the Nantucket series, also make cameo appearances.

This got me thinking: If the current recession worsened, could it cause a similar disaster scenario? Though recessions and depressions have happened many times before in almost every country, globalization is relatively new, and its effects on the current economic problems may be enormous. If globalization creates a kind of negative feedback, the effects of the recession will be minimal and our economy will soon bounce back. But if it acts as positive feedback, the recession will spiral out of control and plunge the world into a terrible depression.

But, will this create the kind of disaster scenario described in Stirling’s books? Remember that the US has been through many depressions before. We suffered though a about 1 depression every decade in the 1800s, and we have also had a few modern economic paroxysms, which we have recovered from as well. Even in the Great Depression, in which millions of people lost their jobs, the government did not collapse and the effects were not permanent. For our government and our infrastructure to completely collapse, we would probably have to be attacked by a foreign nation—mass unemployment, though unfortunate, is a far cry from anarchy. 

The only place where this kind of scenario could occur is in an area like the Balkans or the Middle East. If one country’s government is weakened by the recession, a neighboring country could invade it, creating chaos. The US, though, has no belligerent or militaristic neighbors, making the scenario unlikely.

But preparation for this kind of scenario should not be held in abeyance—it is something we should continue to watch out for and be aware of. It may be closer than we think. 

New hope for Brave New World

Ever since it was published, Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World has been considered a classic example of a dystopia. In the society Huxley describes, people are controlled through brainwashing and genetic control, and they are kept satisfied with drugs and sex. Anyone who does not follow submit to the control of the government is made a pariah and exiled to an island. Obviously Huxley wrote the book with the intent of describing the dangers of this kind of society, and to exhort the reader to prevent it from becoming a reality. To almost everyone, this image is disgusting and unbearable.

But recently I have been wondering—why do we look down on the type of society described in the novel? Though I’m not sure if I totally abjure Huxley’s ideas, I think there is definitely room to question them.

 To figure this out, I think, we have to look into the nature and purpose of society, government, and morals.

First, let’s examine BNW’s World State on a practical level, ignoring morals for the moment. The World State has no war, no crime, and a balanced economy. Everyone has more than enough to eat, and plenty of creature comforts. Everyone performs their job with brio, and everyone enjoys their occupation. Their social conditioning separates everyone into castes, but people are gregarious nonetheless. The have banished racism, sexism, and every form of prejudice. To summarize—they function far more efficiently than we could ever hope to.

Though the World State may be practical, most people feel it is lacking morally. No matter what your faith or morals are, you are probably offended by BNW’s bacchanalian orgies, its draconian eugenics, and its employment of various brainwashing methods. However, we must look beyond our initial reactions and dig deeper—what is actually wrong with these things? Remember that we are judging BNW by our own moral code—but the World State has its own moral code, which is drastically different from ours. Almost all moral codes in existence today stem from some form of religion or faith; BNW’s does not. Instead, the purpose of the World State’s moral code is to ensure stability and uniformity.

How, then, can we morally assess Brave New World? The answer, I think, has to do with happiness, which may be the only common ground between two moral systems. If we look at BNW this way, its draconian methods are more than justified because it created much more happiness for its citizens than we can even imagine. Also, remember that the people of the World State are not disgusted by their system because it is what they are used to. In fact, they would most likely find or system more disgusting than we find theirs. To summarize—the ends justify the means, since the means are only “wrong” by our standards.

On a related note, many people criticize the World State’s “artificial happiness. ” But what is this so-called fake happiness? I believe it to be nothing more than a confusion of terms and morals. Happiness can be defined medically as a state associated with a release of endorphins in the brain. The fact that in BNW this is mostly brought about through drugs and sex is not important—it still qualifies as happiness medically, proving the idea of “fake happiness” wrong.

That said, the World State is not perfect. There are numerous practical flaws in the system, the most glaring being (as I mentioned before) that the State’s structural integrity would collapse that the collapse if a crisis occurred, since people can no longer be self-sufficient. For the most part, though, it runs like perfect clockwork, with the exception of a few aberrations like John the Savage. Morally, I have almost no problems with it, as I explained. Though it may seem difficult to accept, the system Brave New World describes may be far closer to perfect than ours. 

An attack on common sense

Yesterday I read a paper by the philosopher George E. Moore (pictured) called A Defense of Common Sense (full text). In the paper, Moore explains his view of the universe and talks about why he believes in the concept of common sense rather than extreme skepticism. Though Moore is an eminent philosopher and I am sure there is plenty of reasoning behind his opinions, I was very disappointed with this paper, which failed to change my opinions one whit. (To those of you not imbued with skepticism, hopefully I will now enlighten you.)

To open his paper, Moore states that he is going to explain his philosophical view, specifically his opinions on common sense. He then rattles off a list of what he believes to truisms, such as his physical existence, other people’s physical existence, as so on.
But wait a minute—Moore is supposed to be disproving skepticism, particularly pyrrhonism (my brand of skepticism), why is he starting out by assuming realism? To truly disprove skepticism, he should start with no assumptions, like a skeptic does.

Moore then launches into a “proof” of common sense. This was not much of a proof at all—he simply applies simple logic to the assumptions he made in the beginning of the paper, and arrives at predictable conclusions. Nowhere does he truly prove common sense to be true. He does, however, use common sense as a tool to prove several of his assertions. He ends by criticizing philosophers whose answer to a question depends on the definition of the terms in the question, saying that everyone knows the definition of words because it is “common sense. ”
Who does he think he is convincing? Skeptics (such as myself), who are the very antipodes of people like Moore, would scorn this so-called “proof.”

To make this desultory rant even worse, Moore includes a small, entirely random section in which he states that he does not necessarily believe in God. He neither offers an explanation or proof of why he believes this nor discusses the implications of it. Again, who is he supposed to be convincing here? Not me, that’s for sure.

Finally, Moore explains his now famous “here is a hand” proof. Unfortunately, because the paper was written in 1925, Moore’s language is somewhat enigmatic and it is sometimes difficult to follow what he is saying. After reading it a few times, though, the message became clearer. Moore then asks if what we perceive is not real at all but simply bundles of “sense-data”—a question skeptics often ask. Moore’s conclusion is that although the sense-data we perceive may be somewhat different from the actual characteristics of the objects we are looking at (a hand, in his example), there is no doubt as to the definition of what we are seeing.
Again Moore uses common sense to back up common sense, and the proof only exacerbates his already flimsy argument against skepticism. Rather that proceed charily in his attacks on skepticism, he makes many bold (but unsupported) assertions.

To sum it up—this whole paper is nothing but a bombastic rant in which Moore chases his own tail. I remain unconvinced.