About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Massimo's short list of really simple solutions to the world's problems

Some problems are really tough. Fermat's theorem qualifies. It has been solved in recent years by mathematicians Richard Taylor and Andrew Wiles in 1994, but the proof provided for it appears to be much longer and more convoluted than whatever Pierre de Fermat himself apparently had in mind when around 1640 he scribbled a note in the margin of a book he was reading. Then again, Fermat may have pulled the biggest joke in the history of mathematics instead.

Some real world problems are also objectively complex: how to fairly deal with global warming without wrecking the planet's financial and political quasi-stability is one. On the one hand, highly industrialized nations are right in pointing out that the environment simply cannot take China, India, and perhaps eventually a host of African countries, all turning into US-style giant polluters. On the other hand, said countries have a right to accuse the US (and, to a lesser extent, Europe) of laughable hypocrisy when they (the developing countries) are asked to renounce obtaining the same number of large houses and big cars Americans have enjoyed for decades.

But there are many world problems that actually do have a reasonably simple solution, and about which we don't seem to be making much progress, if at all, simply out of the ineptitude or corruption (or both) of our so-called “leaders.”

Take the infamous Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our goal there cannot possibly be to have those people love one another, it just ain't gonna happen. But a more stable Middle East? Easy. The US could use its financial and military leverage on Israel to force overnight a two-state solution, withdrawal of all settlements from the Palestinian territories, and a shared, multi-national UN-secured Jerusalem. It's the only solution, and everyone involved knows it, but no American President has had the balls to force it (perhaps we need a woman to do it?).

Iraq: again, many aspects of the problem there are in fact tough or impossible nuts to crack. But the only way forward is to recognize that the country is a completely arbitrary entity created by the former British colonial power, literally by drawing lines in the sand without respect for the local ethnic and religious groups. There are actually two solutions here, just as in the former Yugoslavia: either put a Saddam-like (or Tito-like) iron man back in charge (not good for human rights, not to mention the acknowledgment that we spent billions to replace one Saddam with another), or allow the country to naturally divide into independent regions, with an international (not US) backed agreement to share oil resources.

Want more? Everybody always complains about the United Nations and its inefficiency. But most people who pay any attention whatsoever to the UN know where a lot of this inefficiency comes from: the ironically named Security Council, and particularly its permanent members. This is a complete travesty, essentially a way for the powers that won World War II (hello? It has been over for 62 years!) to dictate matters to the rest of the world. One single vote within the SC can veto any resolution, with no possibility for the rest of the planet to do anything about it. And guess what? Most of said powers – especially the US, China and Russia – have all the possible incentives on earth to block each other's moves and maintain the stalemate on major issues, from peace efforts to global climate change. The solution is the abolition of the permanent SC and its replacement with a truly democratic system in which every nation gets a vote. Further improvement would be achieved by structuring voting in proportion to population size, as well as making it conditional on each nation abiding by the UN Charter, including the articles concerning the civil liberties of their own citizens (no need to kick the non-complying nations out of the circle, just let them sit out round after round and watch until they get their act together).

Similarly, the corrupt electoral system of the self-professed “best democracy in the world,” good ol' US of A. The most (though by all means not the only) idiotic thing about it is the one state = two senators rule. This is a leftover of the compromise reached during the drafting of the Constitution, when states where largely independent entities, distrustful of each other. But it simply defies reason to seriously maintain that, for instance, the tiny state of Delaware has the same right to representation in the Senate as California. The second most stupid thing about the American system is the “winner takes all” mechanism within each state, which allows bizarre outcomes like someone winning the popular vote but losing the election (Gore in 2000, even without counting the dirty tricks perpetrated by Bush-Cheney), or presidents to claim a “mandate” because of a rather imaginary “landslide.” That system also perpetuates the myth of the “red vs. blue” states, while in fact the divide is much more along urban (more educated, more liberal) vs. rural (less educated, more conservative) populations, with a state-level balance that in fact often hovers very close to 50-50.

One more example: everyone keeps complaining about the sorry state of public education, and how badly our schools are doing, and so on and so forth. Besides the fact that the death of the public school has been declared quite a bit prematurely, there is, again, a simple solution: put money, and I mean a lot of money, into significantly improving the faculty/student ratio. Education works well when teachers can truly interact in a one-to-few fashion with their students, give them individual attention, and switch from the dreaded lecture mode to an open discussion, an ongoing Socratic (or Montessori, if you prefer) method. That's how the successful private schools do it, it ain't magic, you know. Of course, that would cost billions; then again, aren't we wasting a lot of them (billions) in Iraq these days?

Any chance that any of the above will actually happen? Nope. But don't blame me, I told you how to do it...

21 comments:

  1. Take the infamous Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our goal there cannot possibly be to have those people love one another, it just ain't gonna happen. But a more stable Middle East? Easy. The US could use its financial and military leverage on Israel to force overnight a two-state solution, withdrawal of all settlements from the Palestinian territories, and a shared, multi-national UN-secured Jerusalem. It's the only solution, and everyone involved knows it, but no American President has had the balls to force it (perhaps we need a woman to do it?).

    I'm surprised to hear you offer such a childishly simplistic solution Massimo.

    It isn't Israel drawning all its maps with Palestine not on the map, it isn't Israel who is led by a government with parts of its charter being the elimination of its neighbour etc.

    The Palestinians have had the offer of a two state solution a number of times, they don't want that. If they did they could have had it.

    The only thing Israel is doing wrong currently IMO is attempting to do something as stupid as think that it is possible to negotiate with people whose goal is their destruction.

    The only solution to the Israel/Palestine problem is for the Israel to give up its right to exist or for the Palestinians to realise that they cannot ultimately win in their aim to destroy Israel.

    Suggestions like the one you have offered only embolden those bent on Israels destruction and so only result in the continuation of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "....while in fact the divide is much more along urban (more educated, more liberal) vs. rural (less educated, more conservative) populations...." -- Massimo

    While I agree with the majority of this post, M, I do think that you're painting with a mighty broad brush. Us hillbillies ain't all inbred idiots, y'know; and it seems to me that the inner-city schools have more than their share of dropouts, violence, teen pregnancies, etc. Of course, I'm honest enough to admit that that is only an impression garnered from the media, and not the result of formal research or study.

    I wonder, what was your data for the above quote, that I may read it myself?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jason,

    In all fairness, this post IS titled "Massimo's short list of really SIMPLE solutions to the world's problems". Additionally, you cannot honestly argue that the Israelis have clean hands in the matter. Last time I checked, it was Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, no?

    Since I'm pretty sure you will refer to Arab terrorism in your response, allow me to address it now. It should be abjured. But terrorism too has been practiced by both sides. Of course neither side's acts justifies the other side's acts in a moral sense, but certainly the human desire for revenge runs deep in our core.

    It is for this last reason that I think that ONLY "childishly simple" solutions will work in this instance. The more complex the solution, the fewer people will understand it, and the more it will be demagogued by those with a vested interest in continuing the killing.

    (And too, perhaps, we might take childish innocence as an example. I know sometimes that my nine-year-old son shames me with the purity of his heart. Children have yet to bite the apple.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Additionally, you cannot honestly argue that the Israelis have clean hands in the matter. Last time I checked, it was Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, no?"

    Why does it bother people less when Jews happen to "bulldoze" other Jews homes? This has happened.

    Just an FYI in regard to what rights terrorists live with in other places,
    In Guatemala one can be arrested and placed in jail just for having a tatoo And that solely based on the fact that it makes the bearer of the tat a likely gang member.

    Terrorist factions are essentially gangs. Israeli military has been obviously known to deal with such factions in Palestinian controlled areas. Sometimes to the benefit of Jews, sometimes to the benefit of even their Arab friends and neighbors. But what is often totally not discussed is how much the Israeli infrastructure really helps and reaches out and actually supports the existing Arab community. Medically and otherwise. I've been in the middle of the interaction between these groups, and most of the time it good to polite, and sometimes even very good.

    Especially in Nazareth.

    But who ever talks about that? One day you will find out JUST HOW MUCH BLOOD THAT THE WORLD PRESS has on it's hands. And that for choosing to emphasize the 2% of negative interaction between such groups to the exclusion of the 90 and some percent of the positive, or at least average interaction between these people groups.

    My 'simple solution' is to bulldoze instead most of the major news orgs in the world for irresponsible social agendas. Believe me, news will still get around.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding splitting Iraq into a number of independent states, I was under the impression that this would be a very complex solution to a problem.

    1. Opinion polls conducted of Iraqi citizens (which you can trust as you wish) consistently indicate that only a small percentage of those surveyed are in favour of splitting the country. Devolution of power to regions in a federal democracy (along the lines of USA, UK, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc.) is a much more popular option. The complexity there, though, is rather a lot in that there are a host of issues to resolve, including where the new lines in the sand are, exactly which powers are federal and which provincial, what to do about (or involving) on-going "ethnic cleansing" in which neighbourhoods are transformed into uni-ethnic enclaves (often by force).

    2. The most obvious partition includes carving off the ethnically-Kurdish part and naming it something like "Kurdistan". Two major problems (complexities) there:
    a) Turkey won't stand for it. Turkey has basically admitted that if a new Kurdish state emerges, they'll invade to prevent the seccession of their own Kurdish eastern provinces.
    b) The borders, again. The Kurdish part of Iraq is already semi-autonomous, and argues with the central Iraqi government over exactly how much territory the Kurdish bit actually semi-controls.

    The really simple solutions to some of these problems are also horrific. Just as the common cold could be cured by executing every person who has it (to use a ridiculous analogy), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be "resolved" through the liberal application of high-yield, high-local-contamination thermonuclear weapons, which I'll needlessly point out all five permanent members of the security council currently possess in sufficient abundance. Sterilize everything between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean, and between Syria and the Red Sea, and render it so radioactive that no vertebrate can survive there for 50,000 years, and I guarantee the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be over.

    OK, having said all that above, I'd like to include a strong disclaimer: I am in NO WAY advocating anything like the behaviour I describe above. I DO NOT advocate the use of indiscriminate killing, nuclear or otherwise, as a solution to any problem of any type. I aim only to illustrate that truly simply solutions are often disgusting in the extreme.

    And I'm cowardly posting as anonymous because it's so easy to misconstrue my stupid example as somehow in line with my opinions, to confuse my example with an action I would suggest using the word "should".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, the SC thing has to be changed if that thing is to become any useful, really. Just today, China blocked the condemnation of the violence against peaceful protesters in Burma. I haven't seen it in the American press yet (at least not in the WP or NYT), but if you're feeling Teutonic, you can check it out. Or at least see the photos, there are some really good ones there.

    Talking WP and poor education, today there, about the "No child left behind":

    "As a candidate, George W. Bush once asked, "Is our children learning?"

    On Wednesday, he had an answer.

    "Childrens do learn," he said.

    The setting was, yes, an education event where the president was taking credit for rising test scores and promoting congressional renewal of his signature education law."

    He seems not to know the plural of child. Priceless. Makes me wonder what else he does not know.

    Well, at least Brazil is not the only country with a semi-literate president after all. Like this guy jokes in the newspaper I read there, "how can Bush and Lula talk, when neither one speaks English? Or Portuguese? We're at the mercy of the translators..."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the 2 senators, one state rule is just there to ensure unity. The states already get a proper representation in the lower house, and the smaller states could simply be drowned out. The senate is the house of second consideration, and it is probably important that the views of all areas of the country are heard.

    Actually most of the states are small enough. After all there's 50 of them. So in this perspective the representation of Delaware and Rhode island doesn't look so bad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Why does it bother people less when Jews happen to "bulldoze" other Jews homes? This has happened."

    Cal,
    Of course you are referring to Isreal finally forcing its citizens to withdrawl from the occupied territories of Gaza. It was not their land and those houses should have never been built. Their construction in fact was a hostile act against Palestinians.

    "The Palestinians have had the offer of a two state solution a number of times, they don't want that. If they did they could have had it."

    Jason,
    While I don't hold the Palestinians as blameless for the mess there, lets get real. If one looks at the details of those Isreali offers of "statehood", the objective conclusion is that they were grossly unfair terms which would leave Palestine still powerless to control its own territory, water resources, etc.. At the same time they were making these offers they were still expropriating Palestinian land and building permanent settlements on the West Bank.

    And just as there are Palestinian fanatics whose goal is the destruction of Israel, there is a significant proportion of Isrealis who believe in "eretz Isreal", or greater Isreal, which includes all of the West Bank and Gaza. They believe, along with their fundy Christian allies here in the U.S., that it is against God's law to give up this land.

    Massimo's solution is actually quite sensible. The U.S. subsidizes Isreal to a great extent. We could have significant leverage to force a more just solution.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Regarding Massimo's solutions on education.

    While I don't disagree with your solutions, I think we need to dig a little deeper into our culture.

    Lets face it. We (actually they, the American majority) don't value knowledge, education, and thought for their own sake.

    American culture is constantly indulging in the stupidity and shallowness of entertainment and spectator sports.

    If those kids who were failing in school went home to see their parents reading books of intellectual value, instead of watching the latest "reality show", they would be learning the value of knowledge, education, and thought.

    We need to collectively, as a society, pull our heads out of our assess.

    Do you think it is any accident that all you have to do is go through the check out stand at a grocery store, and know that something is going on in the life of Britney Spears, or Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Those magazines sell millions of copies, filling peoples' heads with trivial info. about the personal lives of the rich and famous.

    We live in a culture of absurdity!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Israeli-Palestinian problem is really as simple as adhering to the UN agreement. Stick to the 1947 borders, let the refugees come back home and make Jerusalem a UN secured city.

    You offer that deal to the Palestinians and 70-90% of ordinary Palestinians would support it. Guaranteed. Most would probably support it even if you let out the refugee part, so whats the trouble?

    ReplyDelete
  11. MP wrote: "...but loosing the election..."

    Aaagh, Massimo you are killing me. My number one grammatical pet peeve: lose / loose, and you go and do it. Tsk, tsk.

    But I agree that there are problems in the world that should be easy to solve. Not everyone will like the solution... someone's ox is bound to be gored... but "the greatest good for the greatest number" ought to be given some consideration. One of the simplest solutions would be for the US to quit sending money - anywhere. It buys us more trouble than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What an ivory tower view of the world! Not a single solution is rational from the perspective of the vested parties.

    1. Israel-Palestine: Withdraw settlements, force a two state solution, UN in a mixed-culture Jerusalem. Put Hamas in charge of Palestine, with Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda on the loose. Israel elects a right wing government to counter. Norwegian, Moroccan and Fiji troops are attacked in Jerusalem while its government by UN agency falter.

    This cannot be solved without dealing with extremists on both sides. (Economist on opening a can of food on a desert island: First, assume a can opener.) A rational person assumes the extremists will sabotage compromise (refer to history and current events) and proposes effective means to neutralize them. Since the UN is ineffective (see below), a rational person would first change the UN or would propose an alternative to make the compromise effective and enduring.

    Iraq: Divide the country into independent regions, with an international backed agreement to share oil resources. An obvious disaster on multiple levels. Independent regions don't share resources outside their boundaries. International agreements are flimsy and depend on mutual cooperation. Vested parties who don't want division will sabotage the partition. The resentful Sunni region will be a failed state and a terrorist haven, a battleground of some sort.
    What a great rationalist proposal!

    UN improvement achieved by proportional voting, conditional on abiding by the UN Charter. Rational question: Which countries start with membership in this revised UN?

    Other suggestions - sorry, but I have limited time. Just thought I'd get something posted.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Massimo writes: "Any chance that any of the above will actually happen? Nope. But don't blame me, I told you how to do it..."

    No chance. Meaning unrealistic.
    Massimo writes that's because of ineptitiude or corruption, but I think it's because his solutions don't take into account the reality of why these various problems exist and persist.

    Solutions are rational not when they are perfect, but when they are the product of reason. Can reason applied to human problems discount human nature (history, group, religion, economic etc)?

    The beauty of the US Consititution was precisely its accounting of human nature, the forces being brought to bear at the time, and (imperfect) solutions which could be passed and enacted. That is an example of rational solutions to vexing problems.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Additionally, you cannot honestly argue that the Israelis have clean hands in the matter. Last time I checked, it was Israel bulldozing Palestinian homes, no?

    Palestinian homes ? Check what makes one a target for such treatment first. It is hardly unreasonable. Israel is far more restrained than they should be IMO.

    The more complex the solution, the fewer people will understand it, and the more it will be demagogued by those with a vested interest in continuing the killing.

    The solution is incredibly simple to the problem. One side has to get give up its aims. There is no other way to solve the problem. Either the Palestinians must abandon their desire to destroy Israel or Israel must abandon its right to exist. While both agendas are in play there will never be a solution because the root of the problem is that one party refuses the recognize the right of the other to exist.

    The problem is that Massimo's solution (and others obviously) fails to address the cause of the problem.

    The terrorism is just a symptom of the deeper problem. IMO while Israel continues to fight with one hand tied behind its back the problem will continue indefinitely.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Massimo, your solutions are way too proximate. Here's an easier way out:

    I think the best solution is to get rid of two factors: 1) religion, and 2) ethnic identity.

    More stupid wars have been fought over religious bullshit or ethnic factions than most other causes.

    So, just get rid of the childish mythology (which most adults call religion) and get rid of this sad personal clinging to fuzzy genealogical history (which most adults call ethnic identity) and most differences among adults will go away as well.

    How's that for "simple"?

    I write this as a proud Hungarian, and now that I think about it, us Hungarians are much better at math and music than, say, Italians; the latter smell bad but dress nicely. I also have a bit of Irish ancestry, horray for me, since us Irish are terrific and charismatic and much better than the damn Welsh, who have red noses and tempers, or even the Swiss, who don't know the difference between Chicken Cordon Bleu and vulcanization.

    Tongue in cheekily yours...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jason,

    I do agree with you that Israel is often not allowed to be decisive enough. That is a real problem.

    It is like the story of King Saul and David. (to explain this matter in terms of an analogy in reference to restraint.)

    There was a time when King Saul (old testament) was totally caught off guard sleeping in a cave. David came across Saul ( Saul had been out with his military seeking David's life, and that was was why he was found sleeping in the cave) could have killed him easily without a fight. But David chose the higher road and did not think it right to kill Saul in his sleep. Often times, Israel could have so taken advantage of the weaknesses that it's Arab brothers have and used its military superiority to wipe out much greater numbers of Arab peoples. But they don't do it.

    Most people do not realize what the IDF is capable of and how often that they DO NOT choose the lesser path. Most of the time they are choosing wait out and negotiate a problem and it just gets them more trouble.

    Every person alive should really have to be a Jew for a day. Not always nice to have to walk around with a target on one's back just because you are a reminder to the world that GOD IS.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The terrorism is just a symptom of the deeper problem. IMO while Israel continues to fight with one hand tied behind its back the problem will continue indefinitely."

    Jason,
    What are you joking? Israel clearly is the party with dominant control and power. They have an army, airforce, and significant control of infrastructure in the occupied territories.

    If they are fighting with one hand behind their back, then they are fighting an enemy with no arms. Literally no equivalent armed forces. If you mean that they should fight without "a hand tied behind their backs", then I can only imagine that if they were not, then they would be committing a complete genocide and ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories.

    My take on terrorism of some Palestinians and others is this. When one warring party does not have access to the resources of a state and its military; then it often resorts to what is popularly called "terrorist" methods, and is labled as such. It is an artifact of disproportionate power in the conflict. State actors are capable of exercising some measure of constraint againg non-combatants while at the same time landing significant blows against their enemy. Actors that resort to terrorist methods on the other hand are not capable of landing significant blows agains exclusively military targets, and thus resort to any viable target. This unfortunately means civilian targets.

    While this is no moral excuse for the practice of terrorist methods, we should not be so quik to morally excuse the conventional methods of state military actors.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Check what makes one a target for such treatment first." -- Jason

    Do you mean to assert that only the homes of terrorists have been razed? That's harldy the case.

    When you type about Israel fighting "with one hand tied behind its back", the implication is that you think that only a full-scale war will solve the problem. I personally disagree, and recent experience seems to as well (Lebanon, both Intifadas, etc). Might you clarify what you mean so that I don't labor under a misunderstanding?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you Cal, you have verified some of my statements about Israel's fundy Christian allies.

    Cal said:

    "I do agree with you that Israel is often not allowed to be decisive enough. That is a real problem."

    Could it be that what you mean by this is that modern Israel is not allowed to behave like it did in the Old Testament? That is, to be genocidal? To complete ethnic cleansing of "eretz Israel".

    "Often times, Israel could have so taken advantage of the weaknesses that it's Arab brothers have and used its military superiority to wipe out much greater numbers of Arab peoples."

    Oh yes, thank you Cal, for at least finally being honest about some things. Of course you are operating under the assumption that Israel has the moral right to treat the Palestinians as they have, unjustly. And also that they have the right to treat them worse. I so admire that Christian love you have!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Palestinian homes ? Check what makes one a target for such treatment first. It is hardly unreasonable

    And could you please enlighten us to "what makes one a target", since you know so much? (or like to think you do, maybe?)

    If you think so much of the Jews and everything Jewish is perfect, Cal, why don't you "become" one and get done with it? It sounds kinda ridiculous to suck up so much to them, you know, not even being one of them. Here are some instructions to you, as a public service. You might be a bit past the age of a "bat mitzvah", but I think you'd do fine anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  21. J,

    That was not my comment.

    Was in Bethlehem in the previous spring. Not that many westerners get there anymore, I think it is somewhat Pal controlled. Israelis definitely risk being kidnapped and most won't enter. Americans and others, not so much.

    When I was there, a man of about 30 some caught stride with me while I was walking between some buildings and told me he would "give
    300 camels for woman like me". I mean, is that a deal for what the usual cost of transportation is these days, or what? LOL

    So, no. Of course I don't think any of the treatment anyone gets there is fair. But neither is almost anyone who lives in those areas "fair" either. My husband would have never settled for less than 700 camels!!!
    (actually some days he'd probably say I was "free" :)

    You just plainly don't understand what societal standard you are espousing. Or maybe you do.

    Isn't it just weird how that feud and the grudges that they represent just goes on and on and on?

    Two yr olds are known to say it best:

    "MINE"!

    And like I said on another thread this morning, two rebellions would not tend to make "a right". But I still think Jews do have a right to live somewhere unharassed. There are some people who don't think that at all, and they are completely irrational.

    C

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.