So seldom do so many of the topics I want to talk about converge on a single article, many people don't realise that this industrialised world we lived in had a bottleneck in history not too long ago. And that bottleneck was in 17-18th century Enlightened England. The legacy of it? The world domination of the British merchant class.
It all started when during some time in the Renaissance, about 1400s, the British merchants were living in the upper-middle class, and trade was making alot of money. In the studies done, the merchants were found to have the highest number of children as compared with the normal peasant, that is about 4 children per merchant to about 1.5 child per peasant. (Of course kings have more children, but their proportion in the country is so small that it didn't really matter) These children inherit the family fortune, as well as genetic traits and the upbringing of their wealthy families. However there were only a fixed amount of social positions in England, and naturally, the traits of the peasants get pushed out of the society (took a few hundred years for that to happen). So what happened is that England was the first to evolve and be dominated by merchants and the industry of trade.
Now, the first few things you need to know about merchants is that trade flourish in peaceful countries, so the large number of merchants in England pushed the government for a number of policies for a stable country, such as lowering crime. And of course everyone knows that England was situated on an island separated from Europe and so wasn't too affected by wars, especially when defended by the large Royal Navy. Together with flourishing trade was also flourishing Science, since Britain wasn't controlled by the Catholic Church and so scientific talents were free to publish. This then cumulated into the Industrial Revolution, and brought fourth every merchant's dream of capitalism.
And so there you have it, with the Industrial Revolution, the British merchants literally took over the world. The British East India Company was perhaps the largest trading company in the world, when assimilated by the British Empire, about a quarter of the world was under its rule, spreading the ideas of the Industrial Revolution like wildfire. Although Spain was large during that time, it was economically much poorer, so European competitors on seeing British lead also industrialised and practised capitalism. And that was enough to transform the world forever, even when Communism tried to overthrow capitalism, ultimately they failed.
It is stunning to think that just because of one group of people on one island off the coast of Europe living only a few centuries ago, the world was overran by British merchants and their ideas. And that the modern, industrialised, liberal global society is modelled from them.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Western Terrorism vs. Eastern Terrorism
I'm missing a number of updates due to a terrible strain on my head from trying to finish a couple of library books, so I'd thought I'll try my best to get to articles up today.
Terrorism is of course not a new idea, its history can be traced so far back into the dawn of civilisation that its really hard to tell where its origins lay. Is it from the raiding bands of barbarians living on the fringe of civilisation? Or did it arise from secret revolts plotted from the heart of isolated/unruly towns? Wherever it might have originated, among the last place you would expect to find it is in the army of an ancient civilisation. Great civilisations raised massive amounts of troops employing intricate formations and having generals leading them. In certain cases, you could almost say that there were rules in battle that the military powers observed.
Yet when facing the savages that lay outside military law, there was always the danger of being surprised. Some used unusual tactics due to the environment they lived in, others have well-developed ambush strategies like the Mongol horde, and even some fearless/suicidal ones who charged to their deaths. The last of course have been virtually stamped out in the West as gunpowder came along. The thing about dissidents in the West, like in the American Revolution, or in the northern Ireland conflict, is that they always leave, to their best efforts, an escape plan. After their sabotage, or even if their mission is unsuccessful, they really want to live to fight for another day. Maybe it's from a lack of manpower, which the East seems to be in no danger of running out, but I'd like to think that it is the result of the Enlightenment.
In the East however, suicidal attacks seem to have no end. Combining suicidal impulses together with modern armoury seems to be the cornerstone of military tactics in the East. These kind of terrorism have demonstrated its finest moments to the world in World War II, where the Japanese were notorious for their Kamikaze pilots in trying to sink Allied ships, as well as for their spectacular way of dying while refusing to be taken prisoners. Unfortunately the East have no lack of other examples, there is the Tamil Tiger bombings, as well as the Palestinian bombings, Indonesian bombings, and the latest craze the Iraqi bombings. All these plans seem to have only 3 options, hit-and-die, die trying and of course being captured when something screws up. Without an exit strategy also simplifies their assault plan, and they have almost no care about who goes down with them, making them frightfully dangerous.
And that's the problem with giving a couple of Bronze Age people modern weapons, just like giving them anything else, the mindset needed to use the technology isn't there.
Terrorism is of course not a new idea, its history can be traced so far back into the dawn of civilisation that its really hard to tell where its origins lay. Is it from the raiding bands of barbarians living on the fringe of civilisation? Or did it arise from secret revolts plotted from the heart of isolated/unruly towns? Wherever it might have originated, among the last place you would expect to find it is in the army of an ancient civilisation. Great civilisations raised massive amounts of troops employing intricate formations and having generals leading them. In certain cases, you could almost say that there were rules in battle that the military powers observed.
Yet when facing the savages that lay outside military law, there was always the danger of being surprised. Some used unusual tactics due to the environment they lived in, others have well-developed ambush strategies like the Mongol horde, and even some fearless/suicidal ones who charged to their deaths. The last of course have been virtually stamped out in the West as gunpowder came along. The thing about dissidents in the West, like in the American Revolution, or in the northern Ireland conflict, is that they always leave, to their best efforts, an escape plan. After their sabotage, or even if their mission is unsuccessful, they really want to live to fight for another day. Maybe it's from a lack of manpower, which the East seems to be in no danger of running out, but I'd like to think that it is the result of the Enlightenment.
In the East however, suicidal attacks seem to have no end. Combining suicidal impulses together with modern armoury seems to be the cornerstone of military tactics in the East. These kind of terrorism have demonstrated its finest moments to the world in World War II, where the Japanese were notorious for their Kamikaze pilots in trying to sink Allied ships, as well as for their spectacular way of dying while refusing to be taken prisoners. Unfortunately the East have no lack of other examples, there is the Tamil Tiger bombings, as well as the Palestinian bombings, Indonesian bombings, and the latest craze the Iraqi bombings. All these plans seem to have only 3 options, hit-and-die, die trying and of course being captured when something screws up. Without an exit strategy also simplifies their assault plan, and they have almost no care about who goes down with them, making them frightfully dangerous.
And that's the problem with giving a couple of Bronze Age people modern weapons, just like giving them anything else, the mindset needed to use the technology isn't there.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The American Revolutionary War
It was once said by an American in the 1800s that they should not repeat the mistake that France had just made. That is to revolt against the authorities and put the powers into the hands of a military leader (Napoleon). Little did he realise that had already happened just a few years ago. Yes, they didn't put the powers into the hands of a person but a republic(and so did the French). What led one nation one way, but the other in another is quite an interesting phenomenon. So let us wind back the clock and return to The American Revolution.
North America just before the time of the American Revolution was under a two way power-sharing deal by the Europeans after kicking the French out, namely by the English and the Spanish. The English, of course being the most liberal of all three countries, and that perhaps is one of the reasons why the United States is the first of the colonies to revolt, and have perhaps the most successful one.
The most important factor that led to the revolution was the problem of representation of the American colonies, being British citizens, in the British government. Britain then further angered the colonies by passing more taxes. Years of friction later resulted in some outright demonstration against the government, like dumping tea into a harbour in the Boston Tea Party. A few more laws from the British and more militarization by the Americans soon led to war.
While both the American and French Revolution were both parts of the Enlightenment. whereby people basically freed themselves. What marked the differences between the Americans and French were enormous. First of all is that the Americans faced an external threat, which were the invading British. While the French was overthrowing an absolute monarchy in their own homes, that is until the Germans start retaliating. The Americans also seemed much more organised in their revolt, while most people remember the French revolution as an era of confusion. Perhaps the most telling signs of this is that the Americans all had clear and exceptional intellectual leaders, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hancock, Adams, ... yet in France, there were so much confusion that a number of their intellectuals and even revolutionary leaders were executed.
The success of the Americans must not be lightly dismissed. Many revolutions had occurred after that, but none had managed to churn out another country that serves as a model to the world. The creation of a government by a group of people who understood Enlightenment philosophy might have done the trick. It is said that trying times bring out the best in people, and it is certainly so for America. Perhaps the best government can only be found when the very survival of the nation is threaten.
You might have heard of the term "continuous revolution" from China's many Communist revolutions and that the idea had came from Communism. However, it had actually originated in America. Those founding fathers believed in the right for a people to overthrow their government whenever they want and preferably every 20 years. Maybe that is the whole idea of a good government, that each generation have to go through a trying event in their lives. Although the dream was never carried through, something similar again happened in the Civil War, and again it brought out one of the better presidents of the United States, Lincoln. It might just be the recent lack of an imminent threat to America's survival that have led to the recent string of unintellectual presidents that America once proudly boasted.
North America just before the time of the American Revolution was under a two way power-sharing deal by the Europeans after kicking the French out, namely by the English and the Spanish. The English, of course being the most liberal of all three countries, and that perhaps is one of the reasons why the United States is the first of the colonies to revolt, and have perhaps the most successful one.
The most important factor that led to the revolution was the problem of representation of the American colonies, being British citizens, in the British government. Britain then further angered the colonies by passing more taxes. Years of friction later resulted in some outright demonstration against the government, like dumping tea into a harbour in the Boston Tea Party. A few more laws from the British and more militarization by the Americans soon led to war.
While both the American and French Revolution were both parts of the Enlightenment. whereby people basically freed themselves. What marked the differences between the Americans and French were enormous. First of all is that the Americans faced an external threat, which were the invading British. While the French was overthrowing an absolute monarchy in their own homes, that is until the Germans start retaliating. The Americans also seemed much more organised in their revolt, while most people remember the French revolution as an era of confusion. Perhaps the most telling signs of this is that the Americans all had clear and exceptional intellectual leaders, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hancock, Adams, ... yet in France, there were so much confusion that a number of their intellectuals and even revolutionary leaders were executed.
The success of the Americans must not be lightly dismissed. Many revolutions had occurred after that, but none had managed to churn out another country that serves as a model to the world. The creation of a government by a group of people who understood Enlightenment philosophy might have done the trick. It is said that trying times bring out the best in people, and it is certainly so for America. Perhaps the best government can only be found when the very survival of the nation is threaten.
You might have heard of the term "continuous revolution" from China's many Communist revolutions and that the idea had came from Communism. However, it had actually originated in America. Those founding fathers believed in the right for a people to overthrow their government whenever they want and preferably every 20 years. Maybe that is the whole idea of a good government, that each generation have to go through a trying event in their lives. Although the dream was never carried through, something similar again happened in the Civil War, and again it brought out one of the better presidents of the United States, Lincoln. It might just be the recent lack of an imminent threat to America's survival that have led to the recent string of unintellectual presidents that America once proudly boasted.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The true face of Islam
... and the courage of one female to challenge it. Born in Somalia and brought up to think that total submission of women was the right Muslim thing to do, like the majority of Muslim women are brought up, Ayaan once believed that genital mutilation was fine, heretics should be killed and one of her duty was to participate in Jihad. However her family went one forced marriage too far, and she fled and sought asylum in the Netherlands. There she met the Enlightenment for the first time and underwent liberation from Islamic laws. She have come to embrace the freedom of speech and thought of the Western world and fought for the liberation of women from religion. However she found that the Netherlands had undergo Islamic radicalism and was threatened with death from fellow Arabs, while witnessing the death of a colleague from once such murder. To protect herself, again she had to flee, this time to the US. Now the Dutch are withdrawing her protection, while the US is unable to provide that kind of security, in the light of this plight she still stands as the ex-Muslim who is staging a revolution against the force of subjugation.
For standing up for freedom even under the very real threat of death, Ayaan truly deserves the title of a hero. If the newspaper article in the link doesn't even bring a tear to your eye, then you have absolutely no feelings for humanity and the threat our freedoms are under.
In addition, there are other articles that show the religious insanity of Islam like the Sudanese government convicting a British teacher who allowed students to vote to name a teddy bear Muhammad for inciting hatred. As well as an article on the Saudi government sentencing the victim of a rape to punishment for not being with a male relative while being raped. And finally an article that sums up all these atrocities.
All these just goes to show that a majority of people in the world are utterly stupid and can't prioritise their actions, and that I have been right all along in entirely bashing those religions that have never underwent a Reformation. And also that we are too submissive to religion to publish any article like those in the British newspaper.
For standing up for freedom even under the very real threat of death, Ayaan truly deserves the title of a hero. If the newspaper article in the link doesn't even bring a tear to your eye, then you have absolutely no feelings for humanity and the threat our freedoms are under.
In addition, there are other articles that show the religious insanity of Islam like the Sudanese government convicting a British teacher who allowed students to vote to name a teddy bear Muhammad for inciting hatred. As well as an article on the Saudi government sentencing the victim of a rape to punishment for not being with a male relative while being raped. And finally an article that sums up all these atrocities.
All these just goes to show that a majority of people in the world are utterly stupid and can't prioritise their actions, and that I have been right all along in entirely bashing those religions that have never underwent a Reformation. And also that we are too submissive to religion to publish any article like those in the British newspaper.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The British dinner
The British has a strange but intellectual habit every time they have a meal, one that even their closer descendants (relatives?) like the Americans feel uneasy about. It so happened that I was reading a British newspaper column and found that a commentator was having a dinner with some American friends and got stuck in a rather awkward situation, because he replied to a sentence a friend had just finished by saying that it is entirely illogical. Apparently the Americans took that as a personal offence, but for the British, it serves as a challenge to start a debate during a meal about a serious topic.
Perhaps it is time that we follow suit, in most countries the chance to start a real debate doesn't come very often, and no, I'm not referring to that kind of 5 minutes on each side debate. Often we find our times wasted by talking about the unimportant events we witness, or maybe passing on the other unimportant events that other people witness. Maybe there is some need to keep on talking that is wired into our brains, and I admit that when I'm with anyone, I feel a nagging feeling to talk about something, but at least we can change to topic of conversation. Perhaps it might feel weird having a structured argument in public, and maybe that's why the British like having them during meals, because there really isn't much of any other options. However by conducting serious discussions during meals, they are actually paving the way to make public discussion more socially accepted.
One other thing that we can learn from the British is that instead of feeling insulted by, well, insults, they actually are comfortable with having their arguments trashed and then improving on them. (Stupid Asian sense of dignity) In a time whereby insults can be hurled across the entire world, it really helps to be able to take others' insults logically and use it for self-improvement. They are admirably a people who have truly embraced and mastered the freedom of speech.
Perhaps it is time that we follow suit, in most countries the chance to start a real debate doesn't come very often, and no, I'm not referring to that kind of 5 minutes on each side debate. Often we find our times wasted by talking about the unimportant events we witness, or maybe passing on the other unimportant events that other people witness. Maybe there is some need to keep on talking that is wired into our brains, and I admit that when I'm with anyone, I feel a nagging feeling to talk about something, but at least we can change to topic of conversation. Perhaps it might feel weird having a structured argument in public, and maybe that's why the British like having them during meals, because there really isn't much of any other options. However by conducting serious discussions during meals, they are actually paving the way to make public discussion more socially accepted.
One other thing that we can learn from the British is that instead of feeling insulted by, well, insults, they actually are comfortable with having their arguments trashed and then improving on them. (Stupid Asian sense of dignity) In a time whereby insults can be hurled across the entire world, it really helps to be able to take others' insults logically and use it for self-improvement. They are admirably a people who have truly embraced and mastered the freedom of speech.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Submission
If you don't read the newspaper often, there is one article on the Sunday Times which shows some people getting unreasonably very angry over a packet of meat. And of course it all makes sense once you realise that the packet of meat contains pork. Apparently someone with some spare time on his hands bought a packet of pork from NTUC and either pasted a halal sticker on it or photoshoped it on and posted it on the internet and NTUC wants to bring that guy to "justice". Wow, I didn't know that you could still get into trouble for mislabelling a product after you bought it and have complete ownership over what you want to do with it.
Now, I have a few thoughts about this weird occurrence, first of course is that now that I know I'll get fined for doing such a thing, I'm not going to do it, of course that probably wouldn't happen anyway as I have no idea what a halal sticker looks like. Next is, you don't own that packet of meat anymore NTUC, it's not as if that the person is conducting a check on whether your packaging is accurately labelled and then falsely placed a tampered package on the shelve to instigate you, so stop trying to get it back and live with it! I know you're stingy with money (look at those overpriced batteries), but even that has its limits.
As for those religious people who have food restrictions imposed by a work of fiction, do what everyone else does - Read the labels on the packaging. I can think of some people who really have these special food needs, like lactose intolerant patients, but they still have to content with studying the contents of the packaging, what's more it is not as if eating that packet of meat is going to kill you, this is just another excuse to be lazy in the name of religious tolerance. And when this kind of joke come up ever so occasionally, don't you dare have the nerve to say that the action should be punished in the name of religious harmony, the only possible reason that action will go punished is for religious submission, namely to YOUR religion. In fact you should be glad that we have been submitting for much more than we should, because of you all my catered food have to be halal, just once I would like to see pork or at least pork oil during the lunch of a function I attend, but no, you must have it your way. Why don't you just do what anyone who have food preferences would do? That is, just don't eat the food.
That's it, the next time I invite anyone over to a meal, I'm sprinkling a little bit of all kinds of animal/plant extract that I can find (unless you have a condition) without telling the person, forcing the person to eat whatever banned substance imposed on him/her. And do you know what the result would be? Nothing of course, the person wouldn't even know that it was there. The reasonable vegetarians wouldn't mind it because they aren't trying to impose their diet on my food, would you?
*Update: I almost forgot to mention that the article posted a comment made by a Muslim which goes something like, this is totally unacceptable and the authorities should crack down on it in the name of promoting religious harmony. Wow, you're not even eating or buying that fictional product that someone posted on the web and you want that person to be punished? That's like not going to watch the movie The Golden Compass because YOU think that it contains anti-religious elements and then trying to get countries to ban the movie while letting your own religious movies have free passes. Wait a minute. What? The Christians are doing that? Damn, I've nothing else to say about that. Funny why there isn't a Muslim who say that he/she is okay we labelling your own can of food whatever you like in defence of free speech who get their comments published.
Now, I have a few thoughts about this weird occurrence, first of course is that now that I know I'll get fined for doing such a thing, I'm not going to do it, of course that probably wouldn't happen anyway as I have no idea what a halal sticker looks like. Next is, you don't own that packet of meat anymore NTUC, it's not as if that the person is conducting a check on whether your packaging is accurately labelled and then falsely placed a tampered package on the shelve to instigate you, so stop trying to get it back and live with it! I know you're stingy with money (look at those overpriced batteries), but even that has its limits.
As for those religious people who have food restrictions imposed by a work of fiction, do what everyone else does - Read the labels on the packaging. I can think of some people who really have these special food needs, like lactose intolerant patients, but they still have to content with studying the contents of the packaging, what's more it is not as if eating that packet of meat is going to kill you, this is just another excuse to be lazy in the name of religious tolerance. And when this kind of joke come up ever so occasionally, don't you dare have the nerve to say that the action should be punished in the name of religious harmony, the only possible reason that action will go punished is for religious submission, namely to YOUR religion. In fact you should be glad that we have been submitting for much more than we should, because of you all my catered food have to be halal, just once I would like to see pork or at least pork oil during the lunch of a function I attend, but no, you must have it your way. Why don't you just do what anyone who have food preferences would do? That is, just don't eat the food.
That's it, the next time I invite anyone over to a meal, I'm sprinkling a little bit of all kinds of animal/plant extract that I can find (unless you have a condition) without telling the person, forcing the person to eat whatever banned substance imposed on him/her. And do you know what the result would be? Nothing of course, the person wouldn't even know that it was there. The reasonable vegetarians wouldn't mind it because they aren't trying to impose their diet on my food, would you?
*Update: I almost forgot to mention that the article posted a comment made by a Muslim which goes something like, this is totally unacceptable and the authorities should crack down on it in the name of promoting religious harmony. Wow, you're not even eating or buying that fictional product that someone posted on the web and you want that person to be punished? That's like not going to watch the movie The Golden Compass because YOU think that it contains anti-religious elements and then trying to get countries to ban the movie while letting your own religious movies have free passes. Wait a minute. What? The Christians are doing that? Damn, I've nothing else to say about that. Funny why there isn't a Muslim who say that he/she is okay we labelling your own can of food whatever you like in defence of free speech who get their comments published.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Clash of two civilisations 2
The Western world has a history of valuing individuals since Ancient Greece, but more particularly during the Enlightenment, the Eastern world on the other hand runs on aristocracy. Valuing individuals is not just important but vital for new discoveries, Science and the like can never be a government directed initiative for the reason that the government isn't as proficient as the scientists, and that's why Western universities come complete with funding where scientists can pursue whatever proposal they submitted when accepted. Much less can be said of the East before the idea of universities spread.
In addition the Western world has it's privacy straightened it out. Ever since the Reformation, beliefs have always became a private part of a person's life, no more Inquisition or Crusades, no more apostles or heretics, the Bible has been transformed into a metaphor book, and nothing within it has to be taken seriously, except for the fundamentalist minority. Unfortunately, beliefs in the East can be more or less summed up as being public, from the Taoist gods, to Hindu deities, the beliefs may have underwent splits in ideology but never a reformation where they are meant to be kept private. In Islam it's worst, there is only word of god that must be kept, apostles get stoned to death, and liberal Muslims are seen as deviating from the true face. Even in Britain, those prophets are unwilling to lift the death penalty from those "capital punishments" in their story book.
We stand here in a divided world, the choice is between a civilisation with infrastructure developed from the Enlightenment or a less civilised civilisation with a structure not suited to maintain the current social order.
In addition the Western world has it's privacy straightened it out. Ever since the Reformation, beliefs have always became a private part of a person's life, no more Inquisition or Crusades, no more apostles or heretics, the Bible has been transformed into a metaphor book, and nothing within it has to be taken seriously, except for the fundamentalist minority. Unfortunately, beliefs in the East can be more or less summed up as being public, from the Taoist gods, to Hindu deities, the beliefs may have underwent splits in ideology but never a reformation where they are meant to be kept private. In Islam it's worst, there is only word of god that must be kept, apostles get stoned to death, and liberal Muslims are seen as deviating from the true face. Even in Britain, those prophets are unwilling to lift the death penalty from those "capital punishments" in their story book.
We stand here in a divided world, the choice is between a civilisation with infrastructure developed from the Enlightenment or a less civilised civilisation with a structure not suited to maintain the current social order.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The clash of two civilisations
Or rather one civilised and one not so civilised.
Ever since the dawn of civilisation, there was always the presence of assimilation between cultures. The Romans did it so well that even after their fall, the people that revolted still bear unmistakable traces of their Roman origins, in law, the sciences and even in naming conventions (the name Caesar has become and unmistakable sign of a ruler in many countries in all its different forms). In Europe three successive waves of assimilations swept through the continent from the 14th to 17th century, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. And today, we face perhaps the last possible assimilation yet due to globalisation, and that is the westernisation of the entire world, unfortunately we also face some of the greatest threats to its success, tolerance and the knack for preserving culture.
Perhaps the best examples of resistance to westernisation is shown in Afghanistan and Iraq, while examples of the threats are displayed in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Britain.
(too lazy to continue today, have 2 enormous non-fiction book to finish)
Ever since the dawn of civilisation, there was always the presence of assimilation between cultures. The Romans did it so well that even after their fall, the people that revolted still bear unmistakable traces of their Roman origins, in law, the sciences and even in naming conventions (the name Caesar has become and unmistakable sign of a ruler in many countries in all its different forms). In Europe three successive waves of assimilations swept through the continent from the 14th to 17th century, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. And today, we face perhaps the last possible assimilation yet due to globalisation, and that is the westernisation of the entire world, unfortunately we also face some of the greatest threats to its success, tolerance and the knack for preserving culture.
Perhaps the best examples of resistance to westernisation is shown in Afghanistan and Iraq, while examples of the threats are displayed in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Britain.
(too lazy to continue today, have 2 enormous non-fiction book to finish)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Holiday Internet Movie Event
If you only have time to watch one movie this year, let it be this political-scientific documentary covering a case in Dover, Pennsylvania. The whole world was watching as the landmark decision was made by the judge, which ended up influencing the establishment of a law in the European Union also in this year. For a court case that caused international impact, it has surprisingly gain very little attention here in Singapore. The video documenting the conditions and the event in the trial is now available free on the Internet here.
If you only have time in your life to watch one documentary on evolution, let it be the 1991 Michael Faraday's Christmas Lecture conducted by Professor Richard Dawkins. It is a series of 5 one hour lectures hosted by the Royal Academy of Science in Britan, now available here on Google Video.
If you only have time in your life to watch one documentary on evolution, let it be the 1991 Michael Faraday's Christmas Lecture conducted by Professor Richard Dawkins. It is a series of 5 one hour lectures hosted by the Royal Academy of Science in Britan, now available here on Google Video.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Rules of altruism
Argh, I'm kind of edgy after experiencing 6 consecutive days of renovation works in the apartment next to me, barring Thursday's holiday. It is so bad that my sister and I decided to come up with a sport to irritate them back, I won't say anything about it except that it has got to do with ice.
Society is established on the grounds of reciprocal altruism, which means "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" in monkey language or "you pick my ticks and I pick yours" in bird language. And for us humans, you don't operate that irritating drill in your house, and I won't operate mine, or find some other innovative way to irritate you. Of course, every now and then someone would like to cheat these unwritten rules, so others have to gang up to punish them so that others can enjoy a peace of mind. That's why there are written rules, and law enforcement agency to enforce the rules, and sometimes that gets out of control. Of course, that isn't the point, the point I'm going to talk about is about the unwritten rules.
Obviously, every now and then you might need a house renovation that needs a lot of drilling, so you're going to have to break the unwritten rules from time to time, so how should you do it? Well, first thing you should do is to inform anyone that it affects so that schedules could be rearranged and generally people aren't so mad at you, something my neighbour didn't do. That is one reason why most animals usually have courtship rituals before actually mating.
Second, you try to space out the time interval before breaking the rule again. For evolutionary reasons, all advanced animals have a tendency to forgive a rule breaker that occurs infrequently, since benefits probably outweigh costs, and as we all know, more benefits, more survival. Breaking a rule six consecutive times will put you into the bad books of any animal.
Third, you try to be smart at how you break the rule. For example, arranging the renovation once weekly. Or renovate opposites sites of the house on consecutive days, or putting the really irritating parts on alternate days. There is a wide variety of ways to break rules, so make sure you break yours correctly before someone gets mad at you and start shoving ice down your mouth (metaphorically of course).
Society is established on the grounds of reciprocal altruism, which means "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" in monkey language or "you pick my ticks and I pick yours" in bird language. And for us humans, you don't operate that irritating drill in your house, and I won't operate mine, or find some other innovative way to irritate you. Of course, every now and then someone would like to cheat these unwritten rules, so others have to gang up to punish them so that others can enjoy a peace of mind. That's why there are written rules, and law enforcement agency to enforce the rules, and sometimes that gets out of control. Of course, that isn't the point, the point I'm going to talk about is about the unwritten rules.
Obviously, every now and then you might need a house renovation that needs a lot of drilling, so you're going to have to break the unwritten rules from time to time, so how should you do it? Well, first thing you should do is to inform anyone that it affects so that schedules could be rearranged and generally people aren't so mad at you, something my neighbour didn't do. That is one reason why most animals usually have courtship rituals before actually mating.
Second, you try to space out the time interval before breaking the rule again. For evolutionary reasons, all advanced animals have a tendency to forgive a rule breaker that occurs infrequently, since benefits probably outweigh costs, and as we all know, more benefits, more survival. Breaking a rule six consecutive times will put you into the bad books of any animal.
Third, you try to be smart at how you break the rule. For example, arranging the renovation once weekly. Or renovate opposites sites of the house on consecutive days, or putting the really irritating parts on alternate days. There is a wide variety of ways to break rules, so make sure you break yours correctly before someone gets mad at you and start shoving ice down your mouth (metaphorically of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)