The Unexamined Culture

Socrates famously said "The unexamined life is not worth living", which to me means that you should think about your life and consciously decide to live it in a certain way, rather than just living the way everyone else does, or because you think it is expected of you, or because it's easiest.  It doesn't mean you have to be unconventional or make big changes in your life, just that you should decide whether the way you're living is the way you want to be living, and if not, then you can try to figure out how to make it so.

A corollary to Socrates' dictum is that it's worthwhile examining other people's lives (especially people you admire), either directly by observing them and talking to them or by reading biographies.  By learning more about how other people live their lives, you may discover a way of life that hadn't occurred to you or which you might have deemed unrealistic.  You may also find hints about how to bring your life closer to your ideal, or cautionary tales about what not to do.

But no one lives life in isolation.  We are all part of a society, defined primarily by its culture, that is, a set of rules about how to live with other people.  But where do these rules come from, and why are they the way they are?  Some philosophers posit a social contract, in which individuals voluntarily agree to abrogate certain freedoms because they perceive it is in their interest that everyone do likewise.  Essentially this is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

David Hume makes the cogent observation that while a social contract is an appealing concept, it is unlikely that any present society derives from an actual contract or explicit agreement.  Others have pointed out possible exceptions, such as 18th-century pirates and the Mafia, but these are few and limited.

Evolution surely applies to cultures as well as species.  Wherever they come from, cultures compete with each other, unless they are completely isolated.  A culture (or cultural value) that promotes prosperity, for example Max Weber's "Protestant work ethic" is more likely to survive than one that does not.  Supposing a large variation of cultures at some distant age, over time some of these cultures would likely prevail over others.

But it does not follow that surviving cultures necessarily are those with the "best" set of rules or values.  For one thing, "best" according to the survival of the culture does not necessarily imply "best" for the individual.  Even where the good of the culture is aligned with the good of the individual, it is still possible that a culture reaches a "local maximum" which is nevertheless not the best possible state.  For example, in some game theory situations, there are two stable states: one in which everyone "cooperates" (according to a purely abstract definition of cooperation) and another, with less total benefit, in which everyone "defects".

Moreover, just as a species which is well-adapted to one environment may no longer be successful if the environment changes, cultural values which may have been adaptive a millennium or even a century ago may no longer be as useful now, and could even be counterproductive.  For example, Yahweh's commandment in Genesis for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" made sense thousands of years ago when populations were small and mortality high, but it is clear that at some point it ceases to benefit society or individuals and becomes a detriment.

So it seems to me that, just as we should examine our own lives, we should examine our culture, with reference to other cultures past and present, and where we find values which are irrelevant or counterproductive, try to change them.  How to do so is a topic for another day.  I'll leave you with a paraphrase of Socrates:

The unexamined culture is not worth living in.

Government of the people, by the people

Think for a moment about our system of federal elections and elected representatives, and try to come up with some problems with it.  I'm sure you can think of a sizeable list just off the top of your head, probably something like this:

• Running a campaign requires lots of money, hence is susceptible to influence by people & organizations with lots of money.
• Campaigning and serving in office requires lots of time.  Except for part-time local positions, this means that most people who have to work for a living will not even consider running for office.  Those who do will tend to view politics as a career, and their primary goal will be to remain in office, and thus (because of the previous point) to raise lots of money. 
• Elected representatives tend to be middle-aged (or older) white male Christian lawyers.  True, the number of female and non-white representatives has been increasing, but it's still highly disproportionate compared to the overall population.
• Making an intelligent choice requires that you know something about the candidates, their characters and positions.  Obtaining and evaluating this information takes time and effort, and many voters do not bother, basing their choice on superficial attributes such as height, or on brief "sound bites" or "talking points" obtained from mass media, or not voting at all.
• Perhaps partly in an effort to deal with the previous point, candidates usually identify with a political party.  The parties themselves become self-perpetuating, and candidates whose views do not fit neatly with their party platform tend to fare poorly.
• The previous point might be less of an issue if there were more parties, but our winner-takes-all system makes it very difficult for a third party (to say nothing of a fourth, fifth, or sixth) to gain any power.
• For that reason, many voters will "hold their noses" and vote tactically for a candidate they think more likely to win, even if they would prefer a different candidate.
• Not all votes are equal.  If you live in a district which favors one party by a significant margin, whichever way you vote, it will make little difference.  Districts are often gerrymandered specifically for this reason.
• Since many people do not bother to vote, a small number of voters, especially in a primary, can determine the outcome of an election. 
• Ideologically extreme candidates are thus more likely to win, since they motivate voters to turn out.

There are probably quite a few more, but you get the idea.  Is there a better alternative, or is it, as Churchill said of democracy, "the worst form ... except all those other forms that have been tried"?

Suppose there was a way of choosing representatives which was perfectly proportional according to any criterion you can think of (ethnicity, sex, age, religion, geography, occupation, socioeconomic status, ideology, appearance), and not susceptible to influence by money, media, or political parties?  Wouldn't that be a vast improvement over our current system?

Well, there is such a system, and it's very simple.  Do away with elections altogether and choose representatives by random lot from the entire adult population.  No campaigns are necessary, hence no money, media, or political parties.  Problems of redistricting, voter turnout, tactical voting, and poorly-informed voters simply disappear.  And you are guaranteed that every ethnic group, sex, religion, etc. is represented in proportion to their number in the overall population, provided that the number of representatives is sufficiently large -- 535 should be plenty to cover all major demographic groups.

To mitigate the effects of random sampling (it is possible, though unlikely, that a random selection could come up with exactly the set of representatives who now hold office), to avoid career politicians, and to give more people the opportunity to participate in government, terms of office should be short, perhaps only a single session of Congress, or even shorter.  Perhaps each bill should be considered, debated, and voted on by a different set of representatives.

It may occur to you that a very similar system is already in place in this very country, and has been successfully used for more than two centuries -- the system of selecting jurors for civil and criminal trials.  I think the analogy is very apt, and suggests a number of additional features:

• Representatives should be compensated for travel and other costs directly associated with their government service, and paid an amount equal to their  income from their regular job, or a minimum wage if unemployed -- government service should be neither a windfall nor a penalty.  Employers would be required to allow a representative to take time off to serve and to resume their job or an equivalent one after their service.
• A person selected as a representative may decline for any reason.  I think this is a flaw in the system of jury selection -- someone compelled to serve unwillingly is not likely to help arrive at a reasoned verdict and might even sabotage the process out of spite.
• Permanent civil servants should assist the representatives by keeping records and performing research (in advance of a bill's coming to debate).  A permanent moderator should oversee the proceedings,  keep order, ensure proper procedures are followed, and generally facilitate the representatives' work.
• Some groups of representatives might, instead of approving or rejecting a particular bill, evaluate a number of proposed bills and determine which ones are worthy of individual consideration by another panel -- like a grand jury.
• Any citizen should be able to propose a bill (like bringing a suit).  Proposed bills would be published and interested parties given the opportunity to submit comments or appear in person to argue for or against.

But, you might argue, shouldn't our representatives be wiser and more experienced than average people?  There are several responses:

• Maybe so, but our current system hardly guarantees that this will be the case.
• Yes, and the wisdom and experience will be provided by the judicial branch of government, under the principle of judicial review.  Judges could be nominated by the executive branch and confirmed or rejected by panels of representatives.  
• Not necessarily.  Who can define wisdom?  As for experience, might not the idealism of youth be a useful counterbalance to the pragmatism or cynicism of age?  Moreover, the system of random selection of juries works well enough to have been preserved for centuries.  If we as a society trust a jury of randomly selected citizens to render judgments involving property, liberty, and even life for individuals, why not for society as a whole?

There is certainly still the possibility of corruption, either in the selection process itself, or by interested parties attempting to influence the representatives inappropriately.  Transparency and review of the selection process should limit the former.  Short terms and narrow scope of individual representatives should limit the latter somewhat, but especially judicial review and/or review by subsequent panels of representatives.  Anyhow, it is difficult to argue that our present system is not corrupt.

Of course, this has all been a thought experiment.  Without a revolution, coup, or complete political collapse, there seems nearly no possibility that our present Constitution could ever be amended so drastically.  Still, if enough people start talking about it, who knows?  Perhaps this system could be implemented in some new context: a country in transition, a seastead, a new frontier in space.  One can dream...

If you really want my money...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dslrninja/ | CC BY 2.0

... you should make it as easy as possible for me to give it to you.

I decided to make some online donations to charities before the end of the year -- save a check, save a stamp, get it in before the deadline -- why not? Unfortunately, the experience left quite a bit to be desired. Here are some tips for you, if you happen to be setting up an online donation system for a charity. These are all obstacles I observed on actual charity websites.

1. Make sure your server handles "yourcharity.org" as well as "www.yourcharity.org". If I get a DNS error when I type in the domain, it may not occur to me (or I may not bother) to try the "www".
   
   
2. Put a big "Donate" button in a prominent place on your home page. Most charities have figured this out, but some bury it in a sidebar or disguise it as a "Support Us" navigation link. If I have to spend more than 10 seconds looking for it, I'm going to try a different charity site.
   
   
3. Don't make phone number a required field on the donation form. I don't want you calling me. I'm on the FTC's do-not-call list, if you take the trouble to look. I know, charities aren't required to abide by it, and many of them don't (I'm talking to you, Fraternal Order of Police). So I don't give out my phone number any more. If you require it for a donation, guess what -- I'll give my money to someone else.
   
   
4. In fact, don't make anything a required field, unless it's absolutely necessary to process the payment -- name, credit card number, and expiration date should be enough. After you've got that, you can then put up a form that says "If you would like us to mail you a receipt, please enter your address".
   
   
5. Do you really need the CVV code? How many cybercriminals use illegally obtained credit card numbers to donate to charity?
   
   
6. Oh, and you don't need a CAPTCHA either, unless you're really getting so many spam donations that it's costing you in bandwidth, which I find hard to believe.
   
   
7. In fact, why make me use a credit card at all? Given the general lack of with-it-ness I've seen so far, I think I'm justified in feeling nervous about how you're going to store my credit card number. Plus, if I make several sizable donations to different charities at once, MasterCard or Visa is likely to put a hold on them until they can verify them with me.
   
   But how else, you ask, can we collect donations online? Well, PayPal has been around for going on 12 years now, and Amazon and Google now have similar online payment systems. Besides alleviating security concerns, PayPal is a lot more convenient for me -- I just enter the amount I want to donate, sign in to PayPal, click a button, and I'm all done.

I would like to recommend Charity Navigator as an example of a charity (actually, a meta-charity) that gets it mostly right. Nice red donate button on the home page, options for PayPal, Google Checkout, and Amazon Payments. Plus, they have some very useful advice about donating to charities.

The Good Old Times

The 'good old times' -- all times when old are good --
Are gone...
- Byron, The Age of Bronze

I've been reading Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. While exploring various reasons for a society failing to perceive environmental degradation, Diamond mentions "creeping normalcy" or "landscape amnesia", referring to the tendency for people to become accustomed to large changes if they occur slowly and gradually.

One such change, it seems to me, is the increasing busyness of life. Perhaps the 9-to-5 office job was always a myth for most people, but it certainly seems that people I know work longer hours now than people did when I was a kid, though I wasn't paying a lot of attention then. Certainly if you go back farther, people worked much longer hours: in 1900, manufacturing workers put in 55-60 hours a week over 6 days (source). And average weekly work hours have remained stable from 1976 to 1993. However, since 1981, the proportion of Canadian adults working more than 40 hours per week has risen (source - PDF), so more people are indeed working more (though more people are also working less than 35 hours per week). And according to Whaples' report (op. cit.), "Although median weekly hours were virtually constant for men [since 1950], the upper tail of the hours distribution fell for those with little schooling and rose for the well-educated."

But even our leisure time seems to be busier nowadays. There are certainly many more things to occupy us: every year brings 600 new movies, 2000 new video games, and at least 275,000 new books, not to mention the ever-increasing torrent of Internet forums, blogs, and social networking sites.

When I was a kid, I spent uncounted hours playing with the same Legos, listening to the same few LPs, rambling around in the same woods, and rereading the same books (I read The Lord of the Rings something like a dozen times). Now there are so many new books and games, so much new music, it seems to me I seldom have time to experience any single book, game, or album in depth.

This reminds me of a poignant bit from Bill Bryson's Lost Continent (1989):

[I] wondered why it was that I had been so enchanted by this place when I was five years old. Were childhoods so boring back then? I knew my own little boy, if driven to this place, would drop to the ground and start hyperventilating at the discovery that he had spent a day and a half sealed in a car only to see a bunch of boring log cabins. And looking at it now, I couldn't have blamed him. I mused for a few moments on the question of which was worse, to lead a life so boring that you are easily enchanted or a life so full of stimulus that you are easily bored.

Maybe less is more. Maybe I should just stop now and go reread something.

Jesus was a socialist

I can't figure out how anyone who professes to be a Christian can oppose universal health care. Let's see what Jesus said on the subject, shall we?

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
for I was ahungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee ahungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
for I was ahungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee ahungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
(Matthew 25:31-46)

Let the whining and excuse-making begin. "But all Jesus says is that we should visit the least of our brothers when they are sick -- he doesn't say anything about a public option or a single-payer system." Tell it to St. Peter, buster -- the clear implication is that EVERYONE is responsible for caring for ALL those in need. Sounds to me like you're headed for everlasting punishment.

Oh, and by the way, all you capitalists? "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24)

And some more advice:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(Matthew 19:21-24)

Hey, no one said being a Christian would be easy. At least you don't have to fight lions bare-handed in an arena these days.

Too Big to Succeed

"Greed is good" was the mantra of the 80s, but after the stock market "crash" of 1989 and the arrest of junk-bond traders Ivan Boesky and Michael Milligan, it became no longer acceptable to say so.  Not that the culture of the financial industry changed -- it simply became less conspicuous.

Greed is, of course, an inherent part of human nature, and any political or ethical system which fails to take it into account is doomed to failure.  Part of the reason for capitalism's success (such as it has been) is surely that it harnesses greed to productive ends.  Or perhaps more accurately, some of its side effects benefit society (creation of jobs, technological progress) in spite of its main goal of facilitating greed.

However, even Adam Smith recognized that regulation of capitalism is necessary to avoid its more egregious abuses, particularly where "externalities" (public or common goods such as the environment) are concerned.  Smith probably did not anticipate the emergence of megacorporations and the highly interconnected financial system we have today, living as he did before the Industrial Revolution got into full swing.  If he had, perhaps he would have placed even more emphasis on the need for regulation.

The May Atlantic includes an article by Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, recommending that the federal government nationalize failing megabanks and break them up into medium-size pieces, with new antitrust regulations and caps on executive compensation to prevent megabanks from coming back.  Johnson recognizes that this would produce some inefficiency and might drive some financial activity overseas, but in his view, these disadvantages are outweighed by the benefits of not having to bail out banks that are "too big to fail".

I wholeheartedly concur with Johnson, but why stop at banks?  The federal government has been bailing out GM and Chrysler for the same reason, that they are too big to fail.  But individual construction companies, which have also been hard hit by the recession, are not getting a bailout (though you could say that the industry as a whole is getting a bailout from the stimulus package).  Perhaps this is because there are no construction companies that are too big to fail.  Why not impose limits on the size of any corporation, not just banks?

Johnson blames the "oligarchy" of financial executives for exerting undue influence on the government and preventing these reforms.  But even in the unlikely event that we manage to break the financial oligarchy's hold on the government, some other corporate oligarchy will just take its place, unless we take steps to prevent any industrial oligarchy from arising, by limiting the size of any corporation.

This idea is anathema to conservatives and libertarians, as constituting interference in the pure market, but that position seems indefensible to me.  Without antitrust regulation, monopolies and cartels naturally arise, which reduces or eliminates the competition that is an essential aspect of the free market.  When individual corporations become too big, government steps in to prevent their failure, either because the corporate oligarchies control government, or because government concludes that their failure would have an unacceptably large impact on society.  This also constitutes interference in the free market.

A more reasonable objection concerns how the size limit is determined.  Presumably the limit would differ across industries, to take into account different economies of scale and barriers to entry.  But this becomes subject to interpretation and manipulation (lobbying) -- the definition of an industry, the determination of which industry a particular corporation belongs to, and the determination of the limit for a given industry.  And there would have to be provisions for adjusting the limit as new technologies change the economies of scale or create new industries.  But surely any step in this direction would improve our current mess.

Mother's Day

Often at church on Sundays the pastor would exhort us not to confine our religious devotions to one day a week, but to think of Jesus and follow his precepts every day.  The idea is certainly laudable, at least for anyone who professes to be a Christian, but most people seem to have a difficult time actually putting it into practice.  So they fall back on Sunday.

This morning the children brought their cards to Mommy and promised to be nice to her all day, a promise honored largely in the breach.  I was struck once again by the enormity of appreciating mothers only once a year, when every day Mommy does a thousand things, large and small, to help her children survive and thrive.  Surely, every day should be Mother's day!  But just as the Israelites (and most of the Republican party) constantly turned away from God, so do children invariably neglect and mistreat their mothers.  Even on Mother's Day.