Even the Crusades?

Are all wars caused by population pressure? Do all conflicts between adjacent societies have their roots in population overflow and the subsequent expansion that this overflow requires? Are cultural and social causes, such as the religious fervor found in wars such as the Crusades, merely side effects of conflicts that are inevitable because of population pressure?

Before I answer let me explain the importance of these questions. Besides that fact that a “yes” would simply anthropology and sociology immensely, it would be justification for imperialism and imperialistic Social Darwinism. You see, the most famous person to answer “yes” to this question was Adolf Hitler, who used it alongside his racist attitudes as an excuse for WWII.

But don’t worry—I am pretty sure the answer is no. Though sociologists, anthropologists and social scientists have found that economic causes are usually the underlying reasons for many conflicts, population pressure is not always the determining factor in war. Consider, for example, the conquests of Alexander or Genghis Khan—both captured areas that were far beyond what was necessary to feed the expanding populations of their empires. Also, look at the US during WWI and WWII—on both cases, the US only entered because of trade agreements an policy—population pressure was not a factor at all; the US had—and still has—an enormous tract of unsettled land in the West. Lastly, the Crusades were clearly caused by Pope Urban’s mandate, not overpopulation, as most historians will tell you. There are countless other counterexamples to this theory; if you are interested, look at the causes of almost any conflict—I think you will find that for most of them population pressure is only a minor factor if a factor at all.

Also, consider warfare in the modern world; here the population pressure explanation really breaks down. For example, the Vietnam War and Korean War were fought to prevent the spread of communism; the US did not seek to gain any land or resources from them. Additionally, nuclear war shatters the analogy entirely—it destroys resources and land, and even though it may reduce the total world population it offers nothing in the way of reliving population pressure for the people who are alive after a nuclear war.

However, there is a little merit to the population pressure theory—a conventional war cannot be fought without at least a little population pressure—otherwise, there would not be enough people to go off to fight the war in the first place. Also, recall that in most societies in the past, during wartime, (even in recent wars such as WWII) it was considered virtuous to have many children and send them off to war. Thus population pressure was certainly a factor in conventional wars in the past, especially longer ones, but it was by no means the underlying cause. 

4D mazes

For today’s second post, I would like to talk about four-dimensional mazes. In a six-part series I wrote in January, I explained a few aspects of the fourth spatial dimension. This post is not a continuation of this series—it is more like a supplement to it.

Before I begin, though, I would like to clarify some points about mazes in general. When we see a maze drawn on paper, it is a two-dimensional maze. It utilizes the available 4 perpendicular directions that the second dimension possesses. When we see a physical maze, like those “corn mazes” out in the Midwest, this is also a 2D maze because it does not utilize all 6 directions of the third dimension. Thus, a true 3D maze would be a building where each floor contains a 2D maze, meaning that it is several 2D mazes stacked on top of each other. Likewise, a four-dimensional maze would consist of several three dimensional mazes stacked on top of each other. Surprisingly, such a maze can be drawn and solved. The maze below is one I created as an example.

This is how the maze works: Each 3x3 box is a two-dimensional slice of this maze. Each column is a three-dimensional maze, since all 3 of the boxes in each column are stacked on top of each other. Thus, the whole picture is really all three columns stacked on top of each other. But this is impossible to visualize, so it is better to explain it this way: the three boxes in each column are stacked, and all 3 boxes in each row are stacked in the same way. This means that it is possible to move from one box to the one above it, below it, or next to it.

The maze is played like this: begin at the yellow square and try to reach the green square. You can move into any adjacent square above, below, or next to you (no diagonals) that is not a wall (black square). You can also “jump” to the corresponding square in the box above you, below you, or next to you because they are on top/below the box you are in (again, no diagonals). You cannot do so if a wall is in the square you are trying to jump to. For example: on your first move you can either move to the square to the right or below or jump to the upper left corner in the box to the right or below. 

Of course, much harder mazes, such as 4 by 4 by 4 or larger ones, can be created as well. Perhaps in the future I will make a few more and put them up on this site. If you are still unclear as to how the maze works there are some articles on the internet that may be able to explain them—this idea was based off of similar puzzles I found on the internet. 

Amendment 1 vs. the FCC

In the past I have mentioned my libertarian views on government in the social sphere and my firm belief in a complete separation of church and state. However, what many people do not realize is that even the most secular administrations in the US haven’t even come close to a true separation of church and state. I am disgusted that cultural and religious minorities are ostracized and prevented from practicing what they believe in. But that’s old news—if you are interested in hearing the long litany of government violations of the First Amendment, see one or two of my previous posts.

But today something new occurred to me: do the FCC and the MPAA rating system violate this principle as well?

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Remember that both the FCC and the MPAA rating system are chiefly based on violent content, sexual content, and language. I have no problem with censoring the first, since it has been proven that too much exposure to violence can be harmful to children. However, the other two criteria are another matter. I have found no research suggesting that exposing children to sexual content or foul language is harmful to them. Why, then, is it censored in the first place? This is where the first Amendment comes in. Sexual content is censored not because viewing it is harmful to our health, but because the government believes it morally wrong and bad for us on a moral level. The situation is similar for language: certain words or phrases are considered obscene by certain groups because of cultural or religious connotations, and for this reason the government bans them. This is the violation of the First Amendment: the government is not supposed to tell us what we are allowed to view based on any kind of moral rating system.

Of course, if you support the FCC and MPAA rating system censoring sexual content, you are probably thinking, “What about all the innocent, ingenuous children? Don’t they deserve protection?” Yes, of course. But think about what exactly you are trying to protect them from when banning sexual content. You are preventing them from viewing sexual content because you believe it is morally wrong for them to view it, not because it is physically unhealthy for them to see it. Again, this is what violates the First Amendment: the government is not allowed to tell people what is moral and what is not.

Overall, I suspect that a society that brings sexuality into the open is probably far happier than one that declares it a taboo and shoves it into the closet. But that’s beside the point; the main idea is that people should have the ability to view content that others view as immoral if they so desire. Though I doubt such measures will even come into effect in the US—too much Judeo-Christian moral influence—I hope that we at least recognize that what we are doing is religious and cultural tyranny. Though democracy is what makes America so special, allowing the majority to vote to oppress the minority violates the US’s most important principle: our pledge to protect civil liberties and allow citizens to believe whatever they want. 

Randomness and determinism

Classical physics would seem to suggest that the world is deterministic. According to classical physics, if someone had an infinitely large memory and could perform calculations in their mind instantaneously, they would be able to predict the location of every particle at any moment in time. How? Because there is no inherent randomness in classical physics: everything, even something as seemingly random as rolling dice, can be explained and predicted with 100% accuracy using mathematical equations. Assuming that the brain and not the mind controls human decisions, this means that everything, even what human beings do, can be predicted with physics because the particles inside of a person’s brain are still subject to physical laws.

But, as it turns out, classical physics is not the only set of laws governing the universe—in recent years more and more proof has turned up for quantum mechanics. Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics does include random factors, namely the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So, how does quantum mechanics mesh with the determinism/free will debate?

Firstly, it is obvious that the original model of determinism must be discarded. If random factors are influencing the interactions of particles, then the movements and interactions of these particles can no longer be explained with classical physics. Thus, they can no longer be predicted with any accuracy, making it obvious that determinism must be discarded. Most scientists agree with this analysis, stating that quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic. 

However, in terms of the relationship to human beings, the result remains interestingly similar to determinism. In a deterministic universe, human beings have no control over their actions, and everything they do is predetermined. Again, assuming that the brain and not the mind control a human being, even in a quantum mechanics based universe human beings still don’t have control over their bodies. Remember that in the previous case human choices were simply a product of the predetermined motions of atoms in the brain interacting with each other; now, they are the product of non-predestined atoms in the brain interacting. So even determinism no longer exists, humans still have no free will in the traditional sense.

Of course, remember that this is assuming against the existence of the mind. If human decisions cannot be explained by the interactions of the atoms in the brain and non-physical minds do exist, we would have free will anyway. 

“The enemy’s gate is down”

The quote above comes from Orson Scott Card’s science fiction novel Ender’s Game, which I am going to talk about briefly today. Ender’s Game helped to establish Card as a notable science-fiction author, and it spawned several sequels that follow the main characters from Ender’s Game. The book won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards, which is an astonishing feat that only a few SF novels have ever achieved. (Warning: I am going to give away some plot details, so don't read the next paragraph if you don't to hear how the book ends.) 

The novel bears some striking similarities to Starship Troopers, which I have been talking about a lot recently. As in Heinlein’s controversial classic, mankind is at war with insectoid, hive-minded aliens, and as a result a very militaristic culture has taken hold of Earth. The plot chronicles the story of Ender Wiggin, a genius six-year-old American boy who is conscripted into the military. Ender is shipped off to Battle School, an orbiting space station where similar gifted children are taken to learn military strategy. The children are educated in military tactics with the use of games, notably something known as the Battle Room. This is a zero-gravity chamber in which opposing teams fight in a mock battle with pretend laser guns, similar to a paintball match. There, Ender revolutionizes the game by showing his peers how to use the ability to pick which direction is up in zero-g and how to use that to one’s advantage. (This is where the line “The enemy’s gate is down” comes from—Ender orients himself so that the other sides of the room is down, not forward, so that his legs shield him from enemy fire.) Ender’s strategic genius is soon recognized by the high command, and he is shipped off to another military academy, where he learns military strategy on a larger scale. Soon Ender is forced to command an entire “fleet” in a strenuous series of computer-simulated battles; eventually he becomes so fed up that in one such simulation he completely obliterates an enemy planet so that the game will end and he can stop playing it. After this, it is revealed that this was not a simulation—he actually commanded a fleet and destroyed the alien planet remotely. Ender is then paralyzed by guilt, particularly after traveling to a former enemy planet and realizing that the enemy was not as ruthless as he once thought. The book ends with Ender’s decision to travel and speak for the race he unknowingly destroyed.

Like Starship Troopers, Ender’s Game subtly comments on wartime culture, particularly racism. In the novel, the official term for the aliens is the Formics, but the derogatory slang term “Buggers” is far more prominent. On Earth, the term “Bugger” has become the worst kind of insult. Also, in one scene near the beginning of the novel, it is explained that children play a game called “Buggers and Astronauts,” in which the children stage a pretend battle. Ender remarks that these games often get very violent, and those forced to play the Buggers are often brutally beat up. Though the world government is not as fascist as its counterpart in Starship Troopers, the message that people have a duty to the state is very clear. One character, a military officer, remarks that “human beings are free except when humanity needs them.” This theme is also present in the psychological trickery used to coax out Ender’s brutal side, which the military needs in order to win the war.

Additionally, like in Starship Troopers, the theme of Social Darwinism is ever-present in Ender’s Game. Ender’s normally compassionate self is often forced into being ruthless and cruel. At one point, Ender comments that “The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you.” This struggle between compassion and ruthlessness is the chief conflict of the book. Interesting, even thought the military is being cruel to Ender by forcing him to fight the Buggers, they justify this claim by saying that they are showing compassion by protecting humanity.

Unlike Starship Troopers, the true message of Ender’s Game is not only subtle but also quite mysterious. Though there are many anti-war themes present in the novel, it is still on the reading lists of many military academies. Card asks many questions, but does not always provide answers. Heinlein, on the other hand, is all about giving answers, whether they are purposely wrong or not.

Overall I strongly recommend the book; it is a fascinating read, short and sweet. I doubt this is the last you will hear about Ender’s Game; many of its themes are universal, and many of its questions remain unanswered.              

On “Starship Troopers” (part 3)

I realize I have been discussing a lot of Robert A. Heinlein's fiction on this blog, and I would like to justify it. I have a strong predilection for Heinlein's works, mostly because of his remarkable ability to blend philosophical topics and entertaining science fiction. After all, he did help found the genre of "classic" science fiction, and because of the nature of what he discusses in his works, Heinlein novels are the perfect topics for this blog. Anyway, on to business: today I would like to talk about some more of the political concepts Heinlein explores in Starship Troopers.

First, I would like to continue my discussion of whether Starship Troopers is a fascist manifesto or a libertarian one. Though the narrator’s voice is clearly fascist and slightly militarist, I believe Heinlein has inserted a few hints to show the reader that he is not actually promoting fascism.

Throughout the book there are several “messages” that the characters meant to represent authority or reason pound into the head of the main character: the idea that individuals have duties to the state, Social Darwinism, and the rejection of Marxian communism. Also, note that even though the system in Starship Troopers is democratic, it does not rule with the approval of everyone it governs. However, though the main character describes this system as idea, Heinlein inserts some very subtle clues that hint at his real message.

The first is the belief that “all wars arise from population pressure.” Heinlein’s characters half-prove this with his assertion that man is a wild animal, but the quote is actually an obvious reference to Hitler, who once said something similar. Also, one of the characters goes on to assert that even the Crusades were caused by population pressure, which is obviously wrong. The character then goes on to say:

“Nevertheless, let's assume the human race manages to balance birth and death... and thereby becomes peaceful. What happens? Soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off this breed which 'ain't gonna study war no more' and the universe forgets us.... Both races are tough and smart and want the same real estate....But does man have any 'right' to spread throughout the universe?...The universe will let us know—later—whether or not Man has any 'right' to expand through it.”

This Social Darwinist perspective is a clear satire of fascism, and it hints at the fact that Heinlein’s message is not what it seems.

The next clue is the most obvious: one of the characters states: “The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. [In 20^th century America] nobody preached duty...the society they were in told them endlessly about their "rights"…No nation, so constituted, can endure.”

This is an obvious clue because of Heinlein’s proclamation of his libertarian views; in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, he proudly declares that the state can never place it’s survival over an individual.

At first, Heinlein’s libertarian views seem to clash with his opinions about sacrificing oneself to help others. However, there is actually no conflict between the two: Heinlein wanted society to give people the freedom to do what they want, but he greatly respects those who are willing to work to help others. A society which subjugates people and forces people to live for others—or for the state—is something else entirely.

Heinlein also makes references to the POW’s rumored to be held by the North Koreans and Chinese after the Korean War; in the novel, one of the characters (a professor) explains that if an enemy nation holds prisoners, the number of people is irrelevant—if even one prisoner is kept, that is enough justification to start a war. This viewpoint reflected that of many Americans at the time, though I am not entirely sure if Heinlein is speaking for of against it.

Tomorrow I will discuss Ender’s Game, which is an excellent science-fiction novel that was written in response to Starship Troopers. 

On “Starship Troopers” (part 2)

Today I am going to discuss some of the philosophical aspects of Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Yesterday I addressed some of the many criticisms of the novel, and today I will extend this to philosophical criticisms.

The first and most important aspect of Starship Troopers is militarism, fascism, and ultra-patriotism. In the novel, human society has consolidated into a single world government, “the Federation.” This government is democratic, but only “public servants”—veterans—can run for office and vote. Indeed, veterans are referred to as “citizens”, and everyone else is simply “civilians.” Furthermore, the society is portrayed as being very close to ideal, and because of this Heinlein was harshly criticized for promoting militarism.

I believe the answer is a bit more complicated than this. Starship Troopers is somewhat militaristic in that is does glorify patriotism and the military, but it is important to remember that Heinlein speaks out strongly against conscription, which he refers to disgustingly as “slave armies.” The military force in Starship Troopers is a volunteer force, and Heinlein emphasizes that the military cannot turn anyone down; they must allow everyone a chance to perform public service. However, recruiting stations are present in every school in Starship Troopers, and students are required to take a class called History and Moral Philosophy, which is simply a teacher lecturing on why to join the army. The whole culture of the society is based very much around the military, and “citizens” are glorified. In terms of prosperity, the society Heinlein describes is so ideal it is almost utopian—and remember that the original definition of utopia is “no place,” a society too perfect to exist. The justification for the society is rooted in the idea that man is simply a wild animal, without any higher moral authority. This theme is prevalent thought the novel, and though it does justify mankind’s war with the novel’s aliens it does not fully account for the nature of the society. One of the characters defends the society by saying that veterans are more responsible than non-veterans, and they are more qualified to vote because they are lacking in civic virtue. To put it politely, this completely absurd. A government of veterans would be just as corrupt and inefficient as a regular one, and civic virtue is not as important as intelligence when voting. I suspect that this justification, along with the fact that the society is portrayed as ideal, is not meant to be taken as face value: it is actually satire. In many other books, Heinlein satires a concept by pretending to promote it; here, though he does show militarism in a positive light in some ways, Heinlein is mocking the society he is describing. The only part of it that has any legitimacy is the idea that man is a wild animal, which his reflected in some of his other novels.

Additionally, there are several famous soliloquies in the novel, in which Heinlein comments on various philosophical topics. I have already discussed one of these in a previous post, but I would like to tackle another one.

The first is a speech given by the teacher of a History and Moral Philosophy class. In it, the teacher justifies corporal punishment, stating that because man has no moral instinct, our moral sense must be cultivated with cause-and-effect learning. He compares it to raising a puppy, saying that if a puppy were never scolded for doing something wrong he would never learn. He then goes on to relate this to juvenile delinquents, stating that minor criminals must be punished so that they learn proper morals. The idea of moral sense rather than moral instinct is very prevalent in all of Heinlein’s works, so I suspect that this speech is not a mockery or a satire. Here I agree with Heinlein in terms of the concept of moral sense, but I disagree in the corporal punishment is not always necessary to cultivate moral sense.

Also, Heinlein viciously attacks communism in Starship Troopers. Though Heinlein was a leftist in his early days, the left of the 40’s understood the fundamental difference between socialism and communism; Heinlein was a socialist but not a communist. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein calls Marx a “pompous fraud,” and denounces Plato’s The Republic as “weird in the extreme.” He bashes Marx’s labor theory of value, explaining how the theory pales in comparison to the traditional supply and demand model. Also, the alien race in the novel, the Bugs, is a hive-mind organism. Heinlein uses them to speak out against communism as well; he admits that communism is useful for a species evolved for it, but he still points out many flaws in the Bugs' society. Here Heinlein is not equivocating or being subtle—his message is abundantly clear. For whatever reason, Heinlein has a serious personal vendetta against communism, and it is very apparent in his works.

Tomorrow I will cover more of the philosophical and political aspects of Starship Troopers. 

On “Starship Troopers” (part 1)

Today I would like to discuss one of my favorite books, Robert A. Heinlein’s extremely controversial science-fiction novel Starship Troopers. The book was so popular—and so controversial—that has spawned a B-movie series and has become a permanent fixture in the history of “classic” science fiction. I would like to address several of the concepts explored in the novel, as well as some of the book’s criticisms.

The plot of Starship Troopers is relatively simple: the novel follows a Filipino infantryman’s plight through a futuristic boot camp and into a war with insect-like aliens.

However, the plot is probably the least important aspect of the novel—Heinlein fills it to the brim with lectures about politics, philosophy, social issues, and economics. There is far more description and discussion than dialogue or action, and most of the time the plot and the character development take a back seat.

The main complaint Heinlein received was that Starship Troopers glorifies the military. Because Heinlein was discharged from the Navy for tuberculosis just before WWII, many complain that he knows nothing about war. Heinlein denied the claim that the book was militaristic, since all of the army recruits in Starship Troopers are volunteers, and at the time the book was written the draft was still in use. He also stated that the infantry deserves to be glorified, because they are rarely appreciated. On the whole, though, Heinlein’s picture of the military is unrealistic—I doubt any army in history ever saw so much action. And, even though Heinlein states that war is something to be endured, not enjoyed, he does glorify patriotism and dying for one’s country.

Heinlein was also criticized for racism. This complaint, though, must be dismissed immediately: Heinlein was one of the most progressive thinkers of his time when it came to race—few of his books feature white protagonists (including Starship Troopers, whose protagonist is Filipino), and his attitudes toward race are clearly explained in his other books, sometimes in eyebrow-raising ways. (For example: in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, written in the early 1960’s, the main character, a person of  “mixed race” drops bombs on North America.) What critics are referring to in Starship Troopers is Earth’s attitude toward the aliens—they are referred to as “Bugs” or similar derogatory terms. In fact, what Heinlein is doing is showing what happens to a culture dominated by militarism; he is portraying racism in a negative way. This is probably a reference to the Korean War, which had just ended when the book was published, and WWII (the internment of Japanese Americans).

The book has also come under fire from literary critics. Many complain that his character are undeveloped, the plot is almost non-existent, and Heinlein’s lecturing dominates the novel. Though all of these claims are clearly true, these critics are incorrect in saying that Heinlein’s fiction suffers because of his writing style. Starship Troopers (and many of his other works that feature excessive lecturing) remain hugely popular, proving that the public does not share the same view as these critics. For this reason, Heinlein is clearly not “lecturing at the expense of his fiction.”

Interestingly, Starship Troopers spawned the subgenre of “military science fiction,” which is ironic because there are so few action scenes in the novel. Scores of books were written in response to it, including Ender’s Game, The Forever War, Armor, and many others. Starship Troopers is on the reading list of several military academies, and the military is currently researching the concept of “powered armor,” which was first mentioned in the book.

Tomorrow, I will discuss some of the philosophical topics explored in the novel. 

Avoiding MAD

I have briefly discussed the concept of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, here on this blog before. To review: during the Cold War, the US and the USSR followed a policy of “deterrence”—they realized that MAD would occur if either side attacked the other, so they tacitly agree to not take military direction against each other. But, as the Cold War proved, there are many ways to work around the policy of deterrence and MAD, as well as flaws in the theory itself.

When two nations have nuclear weapons and can destroy each other, in theory relations between the two should be tense but peaceful. Of course, the obvious problem is that even though this creates peace, this peace is jejune and superficial, as it did not come about by a true mutual agreement. Next, MAD does not account for technological advancement—if one country develops superior missile interception technology, that country can attack the other nation with impunity, as they no longer have to fear MAD. Additionally, there is the “Dr. Strangelove” argument—incompetence in government or a rouge faction of the military can create a situation that leads to war and eventually MAD. Next, if a government is willing to accept the terrible humanitarian toll of a nuclear war, they may go ahead and fight one anyway, in defiance of the theory of deterrence. Finally, MAD only applies to those countries with ICBMs—third world countries, which are not tied down to deterrence, can still attack or be attacked without the fear of nuclear bombing.

Even worse, as the Cold War proves, MAD does not necessarily mean an end to war. During the Cold War, the US implemented a plan of “containment,” in which we attempted to keep Soviet ideology from spreading. (This culminated in the Marshall Plan, which pumped $12 billion into post-war Europe to prevent them from lapsing into communism.) Also, as the Korean and the Vietnam war prove, proxy wars can still be fought in areas outside of the countries practicing deterrence. Lastly, the nations practicing deterrence can agree to fight each other using conventional warfare.

Out of all of these methods to circumvent MAD, the most frightening are the concepts that world leaders will continue to find technology to break out of MAD, and the fact that the military could settle for a nuclear war with “acceptable” losses. Also, during the Cold War both the US and the USSR worked to develop superior ballistic missile technologies, and both sides claimed that their own missiles were ahead of any competition, in what was called the “missile gap.” Amazingly, both the US and USSR made provisions for rebuilding their countries in the event of a nuclear attack, and both continued to develop missile defense technology. (“Dr. Strangelove” satirizes this aspect of the Cold War by suggesting that both countries will attempt to out-plan each other in this respect; when it is suggested to the US military that people can survive a nuclear blast by hiding in mine shaft, one general demands that mines be built deeper so that the US does not fall behind the Soviets in the “mine shaft gap.”)

Interestingly, the threat of MAD is just as prevalent as it was during the Cold War, yet the fear of nuclear war is no longer as prevalent as it once was. I suspect that the main reason for this is that there are no longer nations that were polar opposites and enemies as much as the United States and Soviet Union. Though tensions between superpowers flare up occasionally, the Cold War mentality of ultra-nationalism is mostly extinct. Next, remember that today we are more afraid of terrorist nuclear attacks rather than ballistic missiles. Bu the threat of MAD still exists; nuclear stockpiles are as large as they have ever been, and developing countries such as North Korea and Iran are soon going to be nuclear as well.

Despite its flaws, though, MAD and deterrence did prevent bloodshed, particularly during the Cold War. However, for countries to be truly at peace they must be allies, not enemies kept from war because of the fear of MAD. 

What baseball can learn from cycling

Today’s post is very different from the philosophical topics I usually discuss here, but it is a somewhat pressing cultural issue so I believe it deserves mention.

I have always been a follower of European Pro-Tour cycling. Here in America, though, most people criticize cycling for its never-ending stream of doping scandals. The sport is seen as “dirty” and “unfair” because of all this alleged doping, and its popularity here in the US is extremely low. However, I disagree with most of these claims: admittedly there have been a significant number of doping scandals in the sport over the past decade, but overall I believe cycling is far cleaner than most American sports.

The main piece of evidence for this is the simple fact that Pro-Tour cycling does more than any other sport in the world to prevent the use of performance enhancing drugs. The sheer amount of drug testing dwarfs that of most other sports—during the racing season, more than half of the riders are tested every day. Baseball and football rarely test players, and the results of drug tests performed on American athletes are often left unreleased until years later. Also, cycling uses the newest technology to perform drug tests, including the so-called “genetic passport. ”

More importantly, the punishment for using performance-enhancing drugs in cycling is swift and harsh. The first time a cyclist is caught using any sort of performance enhancing drugs, that cyclist is banned for at least 2 years from the sport, and the team that cyclist was on is investigated and sometimes banned as well. Additionally, cyclists have been banned simply because they used doctors known to give out performance-enhancing drugs, even if they never tested positive themselves. American sports, on the other hand, barely punish their athletes if they use steroids. In American football, for example, if a player tests positive their name isn’t even released until the second offence. Additionally, American officials are quick to give pardons to athletes who “cooperate” with authorities—in cycling, someone who tests positive is never given any sort of pardon whatsoever.

Why, then, does cycling seem to be so much dirtier than American sports if there are so many rules that punish dopers? The answer is that doping is much more publicized in cycling. When a scandal erupts, it is not brushed under the rug like steroid scandals are here in America. Also, because of the frequent drug testing in cycling, athletes are caught as soon as they use any performance-enhancing drugs. In American sports, as we know, many athletes are able to hide what they have done for years. In fact, there are probably many American athletes who are using performance-enhancing drugs who have not been caught, which renders most statistics that "prove" that cycling is dirtier based on the number of scandals false. 

So, what can sports like baseball learn from cycling? The answer is very, very simple: be harsher. If baseball wants to clean up its act, it has to take a hard line of steroid use. I hope that sooner or later the American public will get fed up with all the performance-enhancing drugs in American sports and demand action. However, based on our current reaction, all we will ever do is wag the finger at these athletes and then let them back into sports. 

Democracy and responsibility

“Quiet! Your leader is going to speak now. Everyone turn off your mind.” –Chad Urmston

I would like to devote today’s post to a discussion about how to avoid the kind of society that follows the advice of the quote above. (Urmston actually meant the quote above as a response to Americans blindly following former President Bush, but I am going to take his ironic statement into the general sense today.) What Umston is describing is a society in which the people stare, transfixed, at their leaders, listening to every word without stopping to question it. In a fascist system, this would be a virtue (at least to the government) but in a democracy an educated, cautious citizen contributes to democracy more than an uniformed one. The reason is simple: an uninformed citizen can fall victim to the waves of bunkum propaganda that have come to dominate elections, at least in the US. An educated citizen has a much better idea of sort of leader they want, both policy-wise and character-wise.

There are two different ways to approach this problem: the first involves restricting suffrage to certain groups to ensure that people lacking in intelligence or civic virtue cannot vote. The second involves forcing education and civic virtue upon citizens to ensure they vote in a more educated way.

The first is not as alien or unjust as it sounds—even a so-called “unlimited democracy” does limit suffrage from some people. In the US, for example, one must be 18 to vote, entirely excluding younger citizens from voting. Throughout history, philosophers have suggested systems that would exclude certain groups from voting for the betterment of society. Many of these have had racist undertones, but some of the more reasonable ones included denying franchise to anyone with an IQ lower than a certain number. In one of his books, Robert A. Heinlein satirically suggest only allowing people who work for the government the ability to vote, because they clearly have more “civic virtue.” However, this raises some ethical issues, mainly the fact that too much restriction goes against the whole point of democracy in the first place. Also, the overriding practical issue with these systems is that they are subject to bias. “Intelligence” is often difficult to determine, and “responsibility” and “civic virtue” are even harder to measure.

Because of these flaws, the second option sounds more desirable. But how to go about executing it? A school curriculum that includes modern history is a good start, but this does not prevent citizens from falling prey to campaign propaganda. Another possibility is to have the government organize an objective news broadcasting body. Though this would in theory be neutral, in reality it would probably be just as prone to bias as any other news station.

Thus, I think the most reasonable method is actually a third alternative. Part of what Urmston is saying has to do with the way we portray our leaders. In the 1930’s, Hitler and Mussolini used planned theatrics to appear like Herculean supermen (metaphorically), and their august uniforms made them look the part of powerful leaders. In other words: it is often the image of a leader that determines how people feel about that person. In recent years, this is how politicians in the US have been treated (at least by those of the corresponding political party). In addition to educating people, we need to humanize our leaders.

Regardless of how we go about it, we must ensure that we, the citizens of democratic nations, do not allow our system to decay into totalitarianism simply because we were not responsible. Democracy and responsibility must go hand in hand, or else we will foolishly elect leaders who betray the very principles of democracy. It is my hope that the United States in particular stays true to the principles on which it was founded. Though dictatorship can look just as good as democracy on paper, history clearly shows that democracy is the superior system, if the citizens it rules are responsible enough.