Francis Mont's Blog, page 11
October 28, 2015
Solutions – too simple, too sane
While working on the second volume of my Physics book, I have been collecting my philosophical and political essays in a new book soon to be published under the title: Solutions – too simple, too sane.
Here is a short excerpt from the Introduction:
In 1848, the first suspension bridge over the Niagara Whirlpool Rapids posed a serious problem to the engineers: how to get the first line across the ferocious torrent of the whirlpool rapids. Boats could not cross the rapids and the ferries were too far upstream from the proposed site of the bridge. Some suggested a rocket, others thought a cannon ball could carry the first line across the 800 foot span. Eventually, the solution was found by a fifteen-year-old boy who flew his kite over the gorge and then they could use the kite string to pull thicker and thicker ropes across to finally get the bridge project started.
Another story involves a very tall bus that got jammed in a tunnel, too low to let it pass through. All kinds of heavy equipment was brought to the scene to extricate the bus and hour after hour they pulled an shoved and failed to get the bus loose. Finally, the solution was found by an eight year old boy who suggested that they should deflate the tires first before trying to pull the bus out.
These two stories illustrate the theme of this book: solutions to mankind’s millennia old problems, called the “human condition”, are simple and obvious. That is why almost nobody ever considered them seriously.
Some very few examples in human history give us a glimpse of how simple sane solutions are: The most dramatic example of an act of intelligent problem-solving in the social arena, is described by Will Durant: in The life of Greece - The story of civilization. In 594 BC, when faced with popular revolt due to the citizens having been mercilessly exploited by the moneyed classes, Solon passed a law abolishing all debts owed either to private persons or to the state. This simple act of sanity saved Athens from revolution.
The history of the human species can be looked at as going around the same circle, at ever more destructive fashion, fighting the same demons we inherited from our evolutionary history, unable to break free and adopt the sane solutions that should be blindingly obvious to anyone thinking clearly and critically about the problems we struggle with.
Look at an example: violent crimes committed by fire arms. Canada is trying to solve this problem by gun registration. Enormous expense, red tape, administration, resistance, resentment. Violent criminals are not lining up to register their firearms. Very limited, if any, result.
The real solution to this ‘unsolvable’ problem is foolproof and obvious: Stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition, destroy any we can lay our hands on. Sooner or later there won't be any left. An even saner solution: remove the causes that make most people use them in violent crime.
Whenever I suggest it, hearty laughter. I am obviously a funny man.
Why?
Because everyone knows that it is impossible.
Before I go on, let me admit: I know it is impossible. Not because of a natural law of physics, not because the Martians forced it on us, but because we humans (a sufficient majority of those in power) choose to make it impossible.
Crimes committed by firearms is just one example. Almost all of our unsolvable social problems have perfectly obvious, sane, simple solutions. All of them impossible.
Everybody knows the joke: the patient is complaining to the doctor: “doctor, when I raise my arm like this, it hurts”. Doctor: “Don’t raise your arm like this and you will be fine”.
And that illustrates the joke on the human species: all of our social problems are like that: we do it to ourselves. The solution is: stop doing it and we will be fine.
Of course, most people know that it is impossible to stop doing it, because we are a species saddled with our evolutionary and historical baggage.
What most people don’t know is: there is no other solution, no matter how many times we go around the same circle!
Until our leaders face the choice between self destruction on one hand, or blindingly obvious, simple and sane solutions on the other, we will continue down the path leading us to extinction.
In this collection of essays I will try to sketch out some of the simplest solutions to mankind’s millennia-old problems that we are still struggling with today.
The simplest things
The simplest things are, by far, the hardest to see:
we’d rather drown in complications;
when we could just simply, happily, be,
we choose to suffer in self-created abominations.
We invent ideologies, wars, financial meltdowns
when all we need to do is: produce,
distribute and consume what we really need
and stop making so many mouths to feed.
Bears, wolves, elk are smarter:
hunt and forage for survival
without trashing their habitat…
…they are not, like us, suicidal.
We waste our enormous brains
on weapons of mass destruction,
and drag the bears, wolves and elk with us
into our self-created mass extinction.
Here is a short excerpt from the Introduction:
In 1848, the first suspension bridge over the Niagara Whirlpool Rapids posed a serious problem to the engineers: how to get the first line across the ferocious torrent of the whirlpool rapids. Boats could not cross the rapids and the ferries were too far upstream from the proposed site of the bridge. Some suggested a rocket, others thought a cannon ball could carry the first line across the 800 foot span. Eventually, the solution was found by a fifteen-year-old boy who flew his kite over the gorge and then they could use the kite string to pull thicker and thicker ropes across to finally get the bridge project started.
Another story involves a very tall bus that got jammed in a tunnel, too low to let it pass through. All kinds of heavy equipment was brought to the scene to extricate the bus and hour after hour they pulled an shoved and failed to get the bus loose. Finally, the solution was found by an eight year old boy who suggested that they should deflate the tires first before trying to pull the bus out.
These two stories illustrate the theme of this book: solutions to mankind’s millennia old problems, called the “human condition”, are simple and obvious. That is why almost nobody ever considered them seriously.
Some very few examples in human history give us a glimpse of how simple sane solutions are: The most dramatic example of an act of intelligent problem-solving in the social arena, is described by Will Durant: in The life of Greece - The story of civilization. In 594 BC, when faced with popular revolt due to the citizens having been mercilessly exploited by the moneyed classes, Solon passed a law abolishing all debts owed either to private persons or to the state. This simple act of sanity saved Athens from revolution.
The history of the human species can be looked at as going around the same circle, at ever more destructive fashion, fighting the same demons we inherited from our evolutionary history, unable to break free and adopt the sane solutions that should be blindingly obvious to anyone thinking clearly and critically about the problems we struggle with.
Look at an example: violent crimes committed by fire arms. Canada is trying to solve this problem by gun registration. Enormous expense, red tape, administration, resistance, resentment. Violent criminals are not lining up to register their firearms. Very limited, if any, result.
The real solution to this ‘unsolvable’ problem is foolproof and obvious: Stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition, destroy any we can lay our hands on. Sooner or later there won't be any left. An even saner solution: remove the causes that make most people use them in violent crime.
Whenever I suggest it, hearty laughter. I am obviously a funny man.
Why?
Because everyone knows that it is impossible.
Before I go on, let me admit: I know it is impossible. Not because of a natural law of physics, not because the Martians forced it on us, but because we humans (a sufficient majority of those in power) choose to make it impossible.
Crimes committed by firearms is just one example. Almost all of our unsolvable social problems have perfectly obvious, sane, simple solutions. All of them impossible.
Everybody knows the joke: the patient is complaining to the doctor: “doctor, when I raise my arm like this, it hurts”. Doctor: “Don’t raise your arm like this and you will be fine”.
And that illustrates the joke on the human species: all of our social problems are like that: we do it to ourselves. The solution is: stop doing it and we will be fine.
Of course, most people know that it is impossible to stop doing it, because we are a species saddled with our evolutionary and historical baggage.
What most people don’t know is: there is no other solution, no matter how many times we go around the same circle!
Until our leaders face the choice between self destruction on one hand, or blindingly obvious, simple and sane solutions on the other, we will continue down the path leading us to extinction.
In this collection of essays I will try to sketch out some of the simplest solutions to mankind’s millennia-old problems that we are still struggling with today.
The simplest things
The simplest things are, by far, the hardest to see:
we’d rather drown in complications;
when we could just simply, happily, be,
we choose to suffer in self-created abominations.
We invent ideologies, wars, financial meltdowns
when all we need to do is: produce,
distribute and consume what we really need
and stop making so many mouths to feed.
Bears, wolves, elk are smarter:
hunt and forage for survival
without trashing their habitat…
…they are not, like us, suicidal.
We waste our enormous brains
on weapons of mass destruction,
and drag the bears, wolves and elk with us
into our self-created mass extinction.
July 30, 2015
Counterpoint
My species
invented
death camps,
guillotines,
vivisection,
ethnic atrocity,
but discovered
sonnets,
counterpoint,
impressionism,
microphotography...
...no surprise that
it has evolved
a paranoid
schizophrenic
personality.
invented
death camps,
guillotines,
vivisection,
ethnic atrocity,
but discovered
sonnets,
counterpoint,
impressionism,
microphotography...
...no surprise that
it has evolved
a paranoid
schizophrenic
personality.
July 22, 2015
War
The nice man from the bank
helped me get a mortgage
I will pay for the rest of my life.
I thanked him for his kindness
as he read the documents
on how I would lose my home,
if I defaulted on a payment,
how I would find myself, quickly,
on the pavement.
The lady from the government
then gave me a tax bill to pay,
but she wouldn't say
what my punishment would be
if I couldn't come up with the fee.
The car dealer's gentleman was even nicer
as he gave me the key to my car,
telling me how I would cry
if I couldn't meet my obligations
to pay the monthly installations
I wouldn't get, on foot, very far.
The dentist, before he pulled my tooth,
wanted to know how I would pay him for the maim
he was going to do to my gums
to remove this head-splitting pain.
When I lost my job,
they told me to start a business,
don't wait for others to help me with this
misfortune of mine,
try to become independent,
don't count on my government.
I did and ended up making money
for everyone who suddenly appeared,
taking all that I made:
for rent and for interest,
for penalties, fees, taxes,
for permits and licenses,
for lawyers, for accountants,
for bribes and for promotion,
for legal resolution…
…urging me to work harder,
tighten my belt,
stop complaining about
how it felt.
I thanked them all for helping me along,
with kind words, inspiring phrases,
never once thinking that I was in a war
with a heartless, shameless whore:
the parasites of capitalism,
the leeches of the monied class,
who own our government, make our laws,
who are just happy to eat me alive
never, for a second, shy;
ready to discard me
when sucked dry.
helped me get a mortgage
I will pay for the rest of my life.
I thanked him for his kindness
as he read the documents
on how I would lose my home,
if I defaulted on a payment,
how I would find myself, quickly,
on the pavement.
The lady from the government
then gave me a tax bill to pay,
but she wouldn't say
what my punishment would be
if I couldn't come up with the fee.
The car dealer's gentleman was even nicer
as he gave me the key to my car,
telling me how I would cry
if I couldn't meet my obligations
to pay the monthly installations
I wouldn't get, on foot, very far.
The dentist, before he pulled my tooth,
wanted to know how I would pay him for the maim
he was going to do to my gums
to remove this head-splitting pain.
When I lost my job,
they told me to start a business,
don't wait for others to help me with this
misfortune of mine,
try to become independent,
don't count on my government.
I did and ended up making money
for everyone who suddenly appeared,
taking all that I made:
for rent and for interest,
for penalties, fees, taxes,
for permits and licenses,
for lawyers, for accountants,
for bribes and for promotion,
for legal resolution…
…urging me to work harder,
tighten my belt,
stop complaining about
how it felt.
I thanked them all for helping me along,
with kind words, inspiring phrases,
never once thinking that I was in a war
with a heartless, shameless whore:
the parasites of capitalism,
the leeches of the monied class,
who own our government, make our laws,
who are just happy to eat me alive
never, for a second, shy;
ready to discard me
when sucked dry.
July 21, 2015
Science and Society
I often hear people argue about their country. I have heard educated, intelligent people try to explain it on television, in books, in speeches. What bothers me is the almost total lack of reference points. The body of explanation is floating in air, without an anchor in reality. We have no starting point on which we agree.
If I ask anyone in Canada to define the basic principles by which our society is organized, I get different answers. Some say it is a democracy, some say it is capitalistic; most would agree that it is a nice place to live. (Canadians are proud to be ‘nice people’). If I ask about the problems we have, I really get an earful: too much taxation, too much government, too few public services, too soft on crime, too much corruption, too much poverty, etc., etc.
And when I ask, “too much, compared to what?” - no answer. How do we define what is normal, what is acceptable? According to what principle; by what yardstick? Nobody knows. We just don’t like some part of our social environment for personal reasons and we call it too ‘something’.
Take taxation. Everyone agrees that we pay too high a proportion of our income. What would be the right proportion? Why pay taxes at all? And if we do, what is the appropriate amount? Should it be the same for everyone or should it be progressive? If yes, how progressive? Why? What determines fairness? How do we calculate it? Everyone who ever filled out a tax return knows that tax laws are insanely complicated. Who made them, based on what principle, what criteria?
Almost nobody, at least not in public media, discusses these questions. We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions. Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions.
Our opponents are no better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements -- nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start. Quite often the purpose is to score points. We treat the discussion as a contest, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody win. This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.
If we tried to build science and industry by this method, we would still be in the caves. It just doesn't work. It can't. The scientific method, which was so successful over the centuries in technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems.
We need a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or a point of disagreement. Work on that point, until we reach a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.
In the case of taxation, we would have to ask some basic questions first, before going into details or percentages:
What are the essence, goals and priorities of society?
What are the basically different options for organizing people?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these options?
Which of the options do we chose?
What is the optimum way to implement this option?
If we answered these questions, the rest would be easy. Basic facts, simple logic, and some arithmetic would provide the answers.
The general public assumes that the scientific method is designed for, and restricted to, science. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Take the judicial system, for example. The body of laws ought to read like a scientific document. All the terms must be clearly defined, all the laws clearly stated, covering every probable scenario, every possible exception. No contradiction is allowed in the document and if one is demonstrated, it needs to be revised to remove the contradiction.
Of course, no law-book is perfect, just as no encyclopaedia of science is flawless. But the intent is there and with the right attitude, things can be improved all the time.
In criminal trials both the defender and the prosecutor have to use precise logic to draw their conclusions (even though each tries to cheat as much as he thinks he can get away with) and the evidence they present has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It is a sad state of affairs that our politicians can get away with undefined concepts, gross errors of facts, blatantly illogical arguments, glaring contradictions and transparent emotional manipulation. Just compare the public ‘debate’ that led to attacking Iraq in 2003, with the process I described above and ask yourself the following questions:
• Were all the terms used clearly defined
• Were all the relevant data considered?
• Were all the statements offered consistent with one another?
• Were all the presumed facts clearly demonstrated?
• Were the conclusions reached by meticulous logic?
• Have the need for, and goals of, action been clearly identified?
• Had every alternative action been considered?
• Were the leaders ready to admit error when contradiction was found?
• Was the course of action changed according to new evidence?
• Was there an attitude of honesty, integrity, openness, objectivity?
Somehow I think that it would help if the citizenry were better educated in science and logic. This is part of the reason I decided to write this book.
If I ask anyone in Canada to define the basic principles by which our society is organized, I get different answers. Some say it is a democracy, some say it is capitalistic; most would agree that it is a nice place to live. (Canadians are proud to be ‘nice people’). If I ask about the problems we have, I really get an earful: too much taxation, too much government, too few public services, too soft on crime, too much corruption, too much poverty, etc., etc.
And when I ask, “too much, compared to what?” - no answer. How do we define what is normal, what is acceptable? According to what principle; by what yardstick? Nobody knows. We just don’t like some part of our social environment for personal reasons and we call it too ‘something’.
Take taxation. Everyone agrees that we pay too high a proportion of our income. What would be the right proportion? Why pay taxes at all? And if we do, what is the appropriate amount? Should it be the same for everyone or should it be progressive? If yes, how progressive? Why? What determines fairness? How do we calculate it? Everyone who ever filled out a tax return knows that tax laws are insanely complicated. Who made them, based on what principle, what criteria?
Almost nobody, at least not in public media, discusses these questions. We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions. Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions.
Our opponents are no better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements -- nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start. Quite often the purpose is to score points. We treat the discussion as a contest, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody win. This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.
If we tried to build science and industry by this method, we would still be in the caves. It just doesn't work. It can't. The scientific method, which was so successful over the centuries in technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems.
We need a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or a point of disagreement. Work on that point, until we reach a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.
In the case of taxation, we would have to ask some basic questions first, before going into details or percentages:
What are the essence, goals and priorities of society?
What are the basically different options for organizing people?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these options?
Which of the options do we chose?
What is the optimum way to implement this option?
If we answered these questions, the rest would be easy. Basic facts, simple logic, and some arithmetic would provide the answers.
The general public assumes that the scientific method is designed for, and restricted to, science. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Take the judicial system, for example. The body of laws ought to read like a scientific document. All the terms must be clearly defined, all the laws clearly stated, covering every probable scenario, every possible exception. No contradiction is allowed in the document and if one is demonstrated, it needs to be revised to remove the contradiction.
Of course, no law-book is perfect, just as no encyclopaedia of science is flawless. But the intent is there and with the right attitude, things can be improved all the time.
In criminal trials both the defender and the prosecutor have to use precise logic to draw their conclusions (even though each tries to cheat as much as he thinks he can get away with) and the evidence they present has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It is a sad state of affairs that our politicians can get away with undefined concepts, gross errors of facts, blatantly illogical arguments, glaring contradictions and transparent emotional manipulation. Just compare the public ‘debate’ that led to attacking Iraq in 2003, with the process I described above and ask yourself the following questions:
• Were all the terms used clearly defined
• Were all the relevant data considered?
• Were all the statements offered consistent with one another?
• Were all the presumed facts clearly demonstrated?
• Were the conclusions reached by meticulous logic?
• Have the need for, and goals of, action been clearly identified?
• Had every alternative action been considered?
• Were the leaders ready to admit error when contradiction was found?
• Was the course of action changed according to new evidence?
• Was there an attitude of honesty, integrity, openness, objectivity?
Somehow I think that it would help if the citizenry were better educated in science and logic. This is part of the reason I decided to write this book.
July 13, 2015
Phantom people
Phantom people fill the ether,
circle the globe at the speed of the light,
bounce around from antenna to cable,
light up so many screens in the night.
Electronic Oujia boards push letters around
as we talk to ghosts in cyber space…
…unsubstantial opinions abound
in this incorporeal race
to win an argument, put down a foe,
have, finally, an opinion heard,
display a brave, scintillating show
to impress our peers: the forum-herd.
I lived in this phantom world
for twelve agonizing years,
compliments and insults hurled
at my poor head, awash in tears.
Time to cut my losses, rejoin my race
in real life: friends, neighbors, lovers,
deal with each other in person: face to face,
touch and be touched like sisters and brothers.
Today is my birthday, a new year begins,
full of plans, promises, adventure,
I will have a life again, among the living,
and abandon this ghostly venture.
circle the globe at the speed of the light,
bounce around from antenna to cable,
light up so many screens in the night.
Electronic Oujia boards push letters around
as we talk to ghosts in cyber space…
…unsubstantial opinions abound
in this incorporeal race
to win an argument, put down a foe,
have, finally, an opinion heard,
display a brave, scintillating show
to impress our peers: the forum-herd.
I lived in this phantom world
for twelve agonizing years,
compliments and insults hurled
at my poor head, awash in tears.
Time to cut my losses, rejoin my race
in real life: friends, neighbors, lovers,
deal with each other in person: face to face,
touch and be touched like sisters and brothers.
Today is my birthday, a new year begins,
full of plans, promises, adventure,
I will have a life again, among the living,
and abandon this ghostly venture.
My cat is ill...
My cat is ill.
His recently bouncy body
now limp,
lying on the carpet,
unable to move...
...bright yellow eyes
now dull with pain,
fear, frustration,
not knowing if this is the end.
To the touch his fur is still soft, silky warm,
except for the ice-cold feet on the back,
dragging uselessly behind,
not carrying him
any longer.
I look at him
with so much pain
in my heart,
unable to tell him
that he may be dying…
…so young,
so soon,
so full of life
just yesterday.
It is a life,
I allowed
close to my heart,
to exchange with: love, affection,
recognizing each other's existence
and mutual need
for closeness, understanding,
for unconditional, unpretentious
interdependence.
Love of any life form
is as deep as you let it
penetrate beyond your defenses,
as vital as you dare to expose
your ephemeral, one-time existence
between your brief span
of not yet
and not any more,
that's what life is
that's it...
...all.
His recently bouncy body
now limp,
lying on the carpet,
unable to move...
...bright yellow eyes
now dull with pain,
fear, frustration,
not knowing if this is the end.
To the touch his fur is still soft, silky warm,
except for the ice-cold feet on the back,
dragging uselessly behind,
not carrying him
any longer.
I look at him
with so much pain
in my heart,
unable to tell him
that he may be dying…
…so young,
so soon,
so full of life
just yesterday.
It is a life,
I allowed
close to my heart,
to exchange with: love, affection,
recognizing each other's existence
and mutual need
for closeness, understanding,
for unconditional, unpretentious
interdependence.
Love of any life form
is as deep as you let it
penetrate beyond your defenses,
as vital as you dare to expose
your ephemeral, one-time existence
between your brief span
of not yet
and not any more,
that's what life is
that's it...
...all.
July 8, 2015
A fictitious Canadian Cabinet meeting
Those Canadian members, who can remember that far back, will have a hoot!
(one kind or another).
Here it goes:
The suggestion takes the form of a fictitious cabinet meeting
right after election victory.
........................................
"JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Gentlemen, the country is in a big mess. There
are a lot of unhappy people, hungry children, abused wives,
waste, crime and corruption. We are elected to solve these
problems. What are we going to do about it?
SHEILA COPPS: Mr. Prime Minister, we have to plan
scientifically. We have to define the objectives of a human
society and then plot a course to get there from where we are.
ELINOR CAPLAN: I agree absolutely. In my view a society is a
community of human beings, organized by using division of
labor, to achieve production, distribution and consumption of
goods for basic human needs, and after those are satisfied,
some luxuries for those who want to work for it.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Very good. Since the purpose is to satisfy
basic needs, we have to make a list of them so we all agree
what they are.
DAVID COLLENETTE: That is very simple, sir. We all need food.
clothing, housing, energy, medical help, education,
protection, entertainment.
ALLEN ROCK: If we want to function as an organized industrial
society, then we also need transportation, communication,
power, tools and basic raw materials.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Don't forget about the clean-up. We are not
starting from zero, we have a very sick environment on our
hands, we have to do something about all the pollution and
crime and mess we inherited.
ALLEN ROCK: We also have to make a list of our resources to
know how to allocate them to the different tasks we will have
to perform. We have our population, we have our row materials,
we have our energy sources. That is all it takes to do
anything: people with skills, materials and energy.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Excellent. We are making progress. What are the
skills we need for creating the basic needs?
PAUL MARTIN: Sir, we have a problem with that. There are a lot
of 'skills' that, frankly, do not do any good to anybody.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Really, what are those?
PAUL MARTIN: Everybody involved with money. Anyone who does
not directly contribute to production and distribution.
Accountants, bankers, investors, speculators, cashiers, mint
workers, etc. etc. It is a very long list.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is true. Money is not a basic need, it was
invented to help distribute the produced goods according to
contribution. It seems that we spend more time and energy
arguing about how to distribute goods than we do producing
them. Is there an alternative?
BRIAN TOBIN: Actually, sir, there is. If we decided to share
the produced goods equally, then we could liberate all the
wasted energy and manpower that is now spent on arguing over
and handling distribution. My estimate is that due to the
enormous simplification of our economy, we would all be better
off then most people are today.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Everything? Do you suggest we share all
produced goods equally? But we don't have equal needs and
interests! How do you allow for individual differences?
BRIAN TOBIN: You are absolutely right, sir. What I am
proposing is to put our priorities right. We have to identify
those products that are needed by everyone. Our job is to make
sure that every citizen's basic needs are satisfied. We have
to have control over what is required for providing adequate
levels of food, housing, clothes, health, education,
protection, means of transportation and communication for
everybody. Beyond that ... this is a free country. If some
people want luxuries, they are welcome to produce those in
their spare time, provided they do not harm the common good in
any way ... by pollution, noise, crowding, fraud or
exploitation.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: It sounds like you propose to merge Capitalism
and Communism. I have to admit, it is an attractive thought:
Save the best part of both systems and have some basic
fairness, compassion and freedom in the Country. But what
about the lazy bums? Those who would just help themselves to
their share without contributing?
BRIAN TOBIN: That's true, sir, there would be some of those,
inevitably. However, we just agreed that we have all those
unproductive millions today who do not contribute anything to
satisfying our real needs. I am sure that the number of those
who would just bum along would be significantly lower.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: How about justice? How can we tolerate that
some people get a free ride without contributing?
BRIAN TOBIN: Sir, we can not avoid that. There will always be
bad apples. We have them now. Just look at all the rich
speculators and manipulators who are ripping off the system.
Is there justice in that? We have to make sure that the system
is as fair as possible. It will never be perfect.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: True, we don't want to throw out the baby with
the bath water. Our objective is to create a country with a
largest number of happy citizens that we can realistically
have. It would be stupid to drop the overall level of
happiness just to make sure that nobody gets away with
anything. We would end up exactly where we are now.
ART EGGLETON: I agree, sir. There is another point in favor:
most of the lazy bums have families. We can't punish their
children by withholding their share. The children are not to
blame. It would be cruel and unfair. We don't want to continue
with the poverty and suffering that we have now. Also, it just
occurred to me that most of the criminals would be out of
business. If there is no money, we would not have bank
robbers, muggers, embezzlers, thieves. Very few people would
want to steal finished products that they can not convert to
invisible cash. It is a lot harder to unobtrusively stockpile
antique furniture or TV sets than to hide money. Also, can you
see a drug trade flourishing without the cash it is based on?
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Excellent points.
LUCIENNE ROBILLARD: Sir, I think that many of the lazy bums
would become productive if we found a real place for them in
the production cycle. Just look at the millions of unemployed,
under-employed or those who are employed in degrading ways. If
we organized production intelligently, most of those people
could become enthusiastic contributors.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is a very good point. This brings us to
the next important question. What about unemployment? With the
automation in our industry we already have a high number of
people who have no jobs. If we eliminate all those
unproductive occupations that have to do with money, then we
will really have a lot of people with nothing to do.
BRIAN TOBIN: That is relatively easy to solve, sir. All we
need to do is shorten the workday. This would be consistent
with historical trends too: as our technology has been
improving since the start of the industrial revolution, the
workday has been shrinking steadily from 80 hours a week to
the current 40, where it has been stuck the last fifty years.
It does not make any sense for some people working for forty
hours and some others none. The shortened workday would have
another benefit: those who want luxuries will have plenty of
time left to produce them.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: You are right. We can also use the additional
manpower to clean up our lakes and rivers and air, fix our
roads, provide day-care, improve our education, police,
justice system. There is no end of real problems to solve,
gentlemen, unemployment is crazy when there is so much to do.
We just have to organize the work and allocate the resources.
If we have no money to argue about, we will be free to act.
The reasons our previous governments couldn't achieve anything
was lack of money. If we eliminated money, we eliminated our
problems. All we have left to do is organize our projects: we
have manpower, we have resources, we have time. Let's do it.
JOHN MANLEY: We still have a problem, sir. How about the other
countries? We have a global economy now, it is all tied
together. How can we eliminate money and still be able to
participate?
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is a tricky question, gentlemen. The
biggest problem we have is foreign ownership of our economy.
We will have to find a way to regain our sovereignty. One way
of doing it is trading off those industries that we have no
immediate need for, against those that are essential. Since
now we produce so many needless luxuries and instant junk, I
am convinced we still have enough capacity to produce for our
real needs if we reorganize intelligently. As far as trading
with other countries, there is no problem: we trade in goods
instead of money.
BRIAN TOBIN: I agree, sir. It makes sense to aim at
self-sufficiency when our basic needs are concerned. We are a
resource-rich country, we have everything we need for our
basic requirements, right at home. We do not want to risk
serious deprivation in necessities just because there is an
upheaval somewhere on the Globe! Like the collapse of the
Pacific bubble, for example. We do not want to be hostage to
situations beyond our control.
LUCIENNE ROBILLARD: Yes, but wouldn't it be an enormous task
to reorganize our entire economy for self-sufficiency in basic
needs?
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Gentlemen, we were able to reorganize our
entire industry for war production during the last world war.
In a very short time. If we were able to do it out of fear or
anger, I believe, we should be able to do it out of wisdom and
compassion.
LUCIENNE ROBILLARD: There is still one problem, sir. What do
we do with those of our citizens who own our industry? You can
not expect them to co-operate freely and give up their
control.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is another tricky question. Well, we have
to be reasonable. We should call a conference with the owners
of our industry and agriculture and explain it to them that
the country needs their co-operation. They are Canadian
citizens too, you know. I am sure they love their country just
as much as we do and once they see how everybody would be
better off with the new system, they would not oppose it.
Those who would, well, we can not expect a country to stay
miserable just to satisfy a few no good selfish bastards. If
they do not want to be Canadian, they can go somewhere else. A
society, gentlemen, is based on consensus of the community. If
the community wants equal sharing, that is what the community
shall have. Let's get started on the details. We have a lot of
work to do."
(one kind or another).
Here it goes:
The suggestion takes the form of a fictitious cabinet meeting
right after election victory.
........................................
"JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Gentlemen, the country is in a big mess. There
are a lot of unhappy people, hungry children, abused wives,
waste, crime and corruption. We are elected to solve these
problems. What are we going to do about it?
SHEILA COPPS: Mr. Prime Minister, we have to plan
scientifically. We have to define the objectives of a human
society and then plot a course to get there from where we are.
ELINOR CAPLAN: I agree absolutely. In my view a society is a
community of human beings, organized by using division of
labor, to achieve production, distribution and consumption of
goods for basic human needs, and after those are satisfied,
some luxuries for those who want to work for it.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Very good. Since the purpose is to satisfy
basic needs, we have to make a list of them so we all agree
what they are.
DAVID COLLENETTE: That is very simple, sir. We all need food.
clothing, housing, energy, medical help, education,
protection, entertainment.
ALLEN ROCK: If we want to function as an organized industrial
society, then we also need transportation, communication,
power, tools and basic raw materials.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Don't forget about the clean-up. We are not
starting from zero, we have a very sick environment on our
hands, we have to do something about all the pollution and
crime and mess we inherited.
ALLEN ROCK: We also have to make a list of our resources to
know how to allocate them to the different tasks we will have
to perform. We have our population, we have our row materials,
we have our energy sources. That is all it takes to do
anything: people with skills, materials and energy.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Excellent. We are making progress. What are the
skills we need for creating the basic needs?
PAUL MARTIN: Sir, we have a problem with that. There are a lot
of 'skills' that, frankly, do not do any good to anybody.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Really, what are those?
PAUL MARTIN: Everybody involved with money. Anyone who does
not directly contribute to production and distribution.
Accountants, bankers, investors, speculators, cashiers, mint
workers, etc. etc. It is a very long list.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is true. Money is not a basic need, it was
invented to help distribute the produced goods according to
contribution. It seems that we spend more time and energy
arguing about how to distribute goods than we do producing
them. Is there an alternative?
BRIAN TOBIN: Actually, sir, there is. If we decided to share
the produced goods equally, then we could liberate all the
wasted energy and manpower that is now spent on arguing over
and handling distribution. My estimate is that due to the
enormous simplification of our economy, we would all be better
off then most people are today.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Everything? Do you suggest we share all
produced goods equally? But we don't have equal needs and
interests! How do you allow for individual differences?
BRIAN TOBIN: You are absolutely right, sir. What I am
proposing is to put our priorities right. We have to identify
those products that are needed by everyone. Our job is to make
sure that every citizen's basic needs are satisfied. We have
to have control over what is required for providing adequate
levels of food, housing, clothes, health, education,
protection, means of transportation and communication for
everybody. Beyond that ... this is a free country. If some
people want luxuries, they are welcome to produce those in
their spare time, provided they do not harm the common good in
any way ... by pollution, noise, crowding, fraud or
exploitation.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: It sounds like you propose to merge Capitalism
and Communism. I have to admit, it is an attractive thought:
Save the best part of both systems and have some basic
fairness, compassion and freedom in the Country. But what
about the lazy bums? Those who would just help themselves to
their share without contributing?
BRIAN TOBIN: That's true, sir, there would be some of those,
inevitably. However, we just agreed that we have all those
unproductive millions today who do not contribute anything to
satisfying our real needs. I am sure that the number of those
who would just bum along would be significantly lower.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: How about justice? How can we tolerate that
some people get a free ride without contributing?
BRIAN TOBIN: Sir, we can not avoid that. There will always be
bad apples. We have them now. Just look at all the rich
speculators and manipulators who are ripping off the system.
Is there justice in that? We have to make sure that the system
is as fair as possible. It will never be perfect.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: True, we don't want to throw out the baby with
the bath water. Our objective is to create a country with a
largest number of happy citizens that we can realistically
have. It would be stupid to drop the overall level of
happiness just to make sure that nobody gets away with
anything. We would end up exactly where we are now.
ART EGGLETON: I agree, sir. There is another point in favor:
most of the lazy bums have families. We can't punish their
children by withholding their share. The children are not to
blame. It would be cruel and unfair. We don't want to continue
with the poverty and suffering that we have now. Also, it just
occurred to me that most of the criminals would be out of
business. If there is no money, we would not have bank
robbers, muggers, embezzlers, thieves. Very few people would
want to steal finished products that they can not convert to
invisible cash. It is a lot harder to unobtrusively stockpile
antique furniture or TV sets than to hide money. Also, can you
see a drug trade flourishing without the cash it is based on?
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Excellent points.
LUCIENNE ROBILLARD: Sir, I think that many of the lazy bums
would become productive if we found a real place for them in
the production cycle. Just look at the millions of unemployed,
under-employed or those who are employed in degrading ways. If
we organized production intelligently, most of those people
could become enthusiastic contributors.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is a very good point. This brings us to
the next important question. What about unemployment? With the
automation in our industry we already have a high number of
people who have no jobs. If we eliminate all those
unproductive occupations that have to do with money, then we
will really have a lot of people with nothing to do.
BRIAN TOBIN: That is relatively easy to solve, sir. All we
need to do is shorten the workday. This would be consistent
with historical trends too: as our technology has been
improving since the start of the industrial revolution, the
workday has been shrinking steadily from 80 hours a week to
the current 40, where it has been stuck the last fifty years.
It does not make any sense for some people working for forty
hours and some others none. The shortened workday would have
another benefit: those who want luxuries will have plenty of
time left to produce them.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: You are right. We can also use the additional
manpower to clean up our lakes and rivers and air, fix our
roads, provide day-care, improve our education, police,
justice system. There is no end of real problems to solve,
gentlemen, unemployment is crazy when there is so much to do.
We just have to organize the work and allocate the resources.
If we have no money to argue about, we will be free to act.
The reasons our previous governments couldn't achieve anything
was lack of money. If we eliminated money, we eliminated our
problems. All we have left to do is organize our projects: we
have manpower, we have resources, we have time. Let's do it.
JOHN MANLEY: We still have a problem, sir. How about the other
countries? We have a global economy now, it is all tied
together. How can we eliminate money and still be able to
participate?
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is a tricky question, gentlemen. The
biggest problem we have is foreign ownership of our economy.
We will have to find a way to regain our sovereignty. One way
of doing it is trading off those industries that we have no
immediate need for, against those that are essential. Since
now we produce so many needless luxuries and instant junk, I
am convinced we still have enough capacity to produce for our
real needs if we reorganize intelligently. As far as trading
with other countries, there is no problem: we trade in goods
instead of money.
BRIAN TOBIN: I agree, sir. It makes sense to aim at
self-sufficiency when our basic needs are concerned. We are a
resource-rich country, we have everything we need for our
basic requirements, right at home. We do not want to risk
serious deprivation in necessities just because there is an
upheaval somewhere on the Globe! Like the collapse of the
Pacific bubble, for example. We do not want to be hostage to
situations beyond our control.
LUCIENNE ROBILLARD: Yes, but wouldn't it be an enormous task
to reorganize our entire economy for self-sufficiency in basic
needs?
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: Gentlemen, we were able to reorganize our
entire industry for war production during the last world war.
In a very short time. If we were able to do it out of fear or
anger, I believe, we should be able to do it out of wisdom and
compassion.
LUCIENNE ROBILLARD: There is still one problem, sir. What do
we do with those of our citizens who own our industry? You can
not expect them to co-operate freely and give up their
control.
JEAN CHRÉTIEN: That is another tricky question. Well, we have
to be reasonable. We should call a conference with the owners
of our industry and agriculture and explain it to them that
the country needs their co-operation. They are Canadian
citizens too, you know. I am sure they love their country just
as much as we do and once they see how everybody would be
better off with the new system, they would not oppose it.
Those who would, well, we can not expect a country to stay
miserable just to satisfy a few no good selfish bastards. If
they do not want to be Canadian, they can go somewhere else. A
society, gentlemen, is based on consensus of the community. If
the community wants equal sharing, that is what the community
shall have. Let's get started on the details. We have a lot of
work to do."
July 2, 2015
Ugliness
Whenever I am depressed
over the 'human condition';
when the world seems so hopelessly
hell-bent on its own destruction;
drowning in hate, ugliness and stupidity -
I play a mental game I invented
so I'm able to want to live,
so I'm able to forgive
and forget.
Imagine the ugliest slum,
squalor, poverty and desolation,
and then mentally remove
item after item,
all objects and artifacts
that belong to men...
...then, when you’re done
and have nothing left
but the Globe with all its naked inhabitants,
then you know what Paradise
we were given
when this cosmic experiment started -
then you know what's still underneath
of all you want to forget...
(...yes, I know,
we did not invent
this Darwinian nightmare:
there is violence, pain, fear and suffering
built into the nature of creation;
however,
we humans were the first
to create ugliness
where there was nothing
but the splendor of grass, trees, sunsets,
springs, lakes, majestic mountains
and ever-lasting oceans
before...)
over the 'human condition';
when the world seems so hopelessly
hell-bent on its own destruction;
drowning in hate, ugliness and stupidity -
I play a mental game I invented
so I'm able to want to live,
so I'm able to forgive
and forget.
Imagine the ugliest slum,
squalor, poverty and desolation,
and then mentally remove
item after item,
all objects and artifacts
that belong to men...
...then, when you’re done
and have nothing left
but the Globe with all its naked inhabitants,
then you know what Paradise
we were given
when this cosmic experiment started -
then you know what's still underneath
of all you want to forget...
(...yes, I know,
we did not invent
this Darwinian nightmare:
there is violence, pain, fear and suffering
built into the nature of creation;
however,
we humans were the first
to create ugliness
where there was nothing
but the splendor of grass, trees, sunsets,
springs, lakes, majestic mountains
and ever-lasting oceans
before...)
June 25, 2015
Two kinds of Minds
Human minds
have two tasks to solve,
one tougher than the other:
they have to deal with nature
and they have to deal with one another.
Nature is the easier to tackle:
reliable, consistent,
showing the same face all the time…
…humans lie and pretend,
stab you in the back,
when they do nothing but smile.
I love nature,
pry her secrets, learn her laws,
understand the complexity
mother nature throws our way,
and when she reveals her secrets
those secrets will reliably stay.
The others, who deal with people,
understand and control their ways
have to dance on tight-rope wire
balancing over the abyss,
try to anticipate sudden twists
and it is god to whom they pray…
… while every minute of their lives
it is us they depend on, every step of the way.
When they use their cell phones,
email their friends, advertise on TV,
drive a car or fly on a plane,
eat their food or consult a doctor,
they place their lives in our hands…
…without those hands
they would cower
in the cold and the dark
or try to book a passage
on Noah’s ark.
have two tasks to solve,
one tougher than the other:
they have to deal with nature
and they have to deal with one another.
Nature is the easier to tackle:
reliable, consistent,
showing the same face all the time…
…humans lie and pretend,
stab you in the back,
when they do nothing but smile.
I love nature,
pry her secrets, learn her laws,
understand the complexity
mother nature throws our way,
and when she reveals her secrets
those secrets will reliably stay.
The others, who deal with people,
understand and control their ways
have to dance on tight-rope wire
balancing over the abyss,
try to anticipate sudden twists
and it is god to whom they pray…
… while every minute of their lives
it is us they depend on, every step of the way.
When they use their cell phones,
email their friends, advertise on TV,
drive a car or fly on a plane,
eat their food or consult a doctor,
they place their lives in our hands…
…without those hands
they would cower
in the cold and the dark
or try to book a passage
on Noah’s ark.
June 22, 2015
Conflicting loyalties
In grade seven, dripping with compassion,
Fred and I broke into our lab to rescue the rats...
I alone was caught and grilled for an hour,
urged to tell on my friend
or I would be expelled from the school ...
I kept silent - loyalty made me a loser, a fool.
At nineteen I was called up to the army
to attack the North Vietnamese
who never did me any harm,
I refused and had to flee,
leave my family, my friends, my life behind,
rather than become a blind puppet of the state
I chose a different fate.
Later in life, as an engineer,
I was offered a lucrative contract,
to work on weapons of mass destruction...
I chose to teach instead, for pitiful wages,
and my family had to go along,
follow me where I thought I belong.
My teaching career didn't last long.
Because support was minimal;
I didn't have the time and the resources
to teach the best way possible,
I wouldn’t support mediocre education...
I had to find a new occupation.
Finally I accepted a job
in a chemical factory,
but the conflict followed me there:
I was ordered to dump digoxin in our river
and, when I refused, I was shown the door,
out on the street once more.
That was the last straw for my wife,
she had enough of my principles,
my loyalty to my convictions,
so she left me to follow my lonely path...
...and I still do, I have no choice,
I must follow the voice in my mind
that tells me what is right…
the only loyalty I cannot fight.
Fred and I broke into our lab to rescue the rats...
I alone was caught and grilled for an hour,
urged to tell on my friend
or I would be expelled from the school ...
I kept silent - loyalty made me a loser, a fool.
At nineteen I was called up to the army
to attack the North Vietnamese
who never did me any harm,
I refused and had to flee,
leave my family, my friends, my life behind,
rather than become a blind puppet of the state
I chose a different fate.
Later in life, as an engineer,
I was offered a lucrative contract,
to work on weapons of mass destruction...
I chose to teach instead, for pitiful wages,
and my family had to go along,
follow me where I thought I belong.
My teaching career didn't last long.
Because support was minimal;
I didn't have the time and the resources
to teach the best way possible,
I wouldn’t support mediocre education...
I had to find a new occupation.
Finally I accepted a job
in a chemical factory,
but the conflict followed me there:
I was ordered to dump digoxin in our river
and, when I refused, I was shown the door,
out on the street once more.
That was the last straw for my wife,
she had enough of my principles,
my loyalty to my convictions,
so she left me to follow my lonely path...
...and I still do, I have no choice,
I must follow the voice in my mind
that tells me what is right…
the only loyalty I cannot fight.
