Intelligent Design

Because of the debate that is going on about intelligent design I was wondering what Stephen Jay Gould, the famous paleontologist, would say about it. Then I recalled a letter I had published in Time Magazine in September 1999. The letter addressed a similar debate going on while Gould was alive. It was about the first time the Kansas board of education was thinking about whether to remove evolution from the curriculum:

"Stephen Jay Gould, in his viewpoint on the decision of the Kansas board of education to remove evolution from the state's science curriculum [Aug. 23], stated that we should be embarrassed by those who want to suppress the teaching of evolution. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to the Kansas board for the service it has rendered. It has instigated a debate in which we evolutionists can re-examine and reaffirm our beliefs and, in the process, educate. The controversy reminds us that America's greatness doesn't necessarily lie in the country's beliefs but in the discourse about them".

I think the same holds true with the present day debate .

Capitalism

Why does capitalism exist instead of some other system? Why is capitalism so imperfect?

Capitalism has existed for at least 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution. In that time it has been seriously challenge by other systems, I mean seriously challenged, but it still stands. Not only does it stand, it has destroyed the competition. Why does it continue to reign when so many think it is such a bad system? Why is it the only economic system left in the world?

The reason I think it lives on, even though it is imperfect, is because it is the one system that has shaped itself to reflect the imperfect nature of humankind. Other systems failed because they didn't take into account human nature and its predisposition. Capitalism has molded itself to the human race. The abuses in capitalism reflect the abuses humans are capable of. However, and this will be hard for some to believe, capitalism works to temper and contain those abuses. It has done so in a cajoling manner whereas other systems, like communism, have forcefully tried, unsuccessfully, to mold us into something we are not. It works with our idiosyncrasies and irrationalities whereas other economic systems tried to end or stamp them out. Capitalism, simply, is the best system that can be had under the circumstance, considering humankind's obtuseness and intransigencies.

The idea that capitalism is truly laisser faire and unfettered is a misconception. We could not survive unfettered capitalism. It would be too high octane and dangerous to handle. If it were unfettered there would be many more calamities like Enron and depressions. In the end there would be nothing. If you think the environment is suffering now, with unfettered capitalism there wouldn’t be one. Why would capitalism destroy the very thing that gives it life, as so many think? Capitalism is about economic renewal so it has to take care of it assets - the environment, resources and its people. Yes it is full of contradiction. Nevertheless, it tries to reconcile and resolve them. If it didn't, it, like Marx believed, would have destroyed itself long ago.

People thing that capitalism stands on its own, that it doesn’t liaison with other systems. No system is an island. It liaisons with democracy. It gets feedback and discipline from democracy. This makes capitalism part of a mixed economy, mixed with democratic values, debunking another misconception that we don't have a mixed economy. Partnered with democracy it has cultivated and maintained mutually beneficial values like freedom, public health care, a semblance of equality, work ethics, security and public transportation. Its partnership with democracy is a big reason for its ascendancy, in the same way capitalism has contributed to democracy’s ascendancy.

Another reason why I think capitalism has continued where others have failed is that it deals with economic realities. In this instance I am talking about the natural laws and imperatives that govern us. For instance, the communist command type of economy distorted and manipulated nature's economic realities, like the availability or lack of resources and their true value. It also lied about its industrial and agricultural capabilities, letting down those who had put so much faith in it. Communism's behavior was like that of trying to reverse the law of gravity. Because of these distortions there were always shortages, corruption and staggering incompetence under it. Also, the communist economic model didn't account for the fact that periodically it would have to restore and repair itself due to natural wear and tare. It did not have the psychological awareness of the need for economic renewal, restoration and progress that capitalism has. Capitalism stares economic reality right in the face. Other systems failed because they tried to circumvent reality, the reality of human nature and nature’s nature.

One reason people dislike capitalism is because it has this edge to it, a sometimes unfair and destructive edge. It treats people unequally and it causes social upheaval unnecessarily. However, this edge is what makes capitalism successful and the public wanting more. Apart from making wealth, it keeps society economically flexible and imaginative. It induces economic reforms and innovations when needed. If there were rules made to restrict and destroy this edge capitalism would loose its flexibility and the ability to be the material provider we have expected it to be. Other economic systems the world has known were not as agile, inventive or adaptive as capitalism, hence they not longer being with us.

Humankind has this inherent lazy and complacent streak in it. It doesn’t like change. However the central theme of economics, this husbandry and most essential discipline of humankind, is change. A host of factors are responsible for economic change, like the fluctuation of prices, the movement of people, entropy, renewal and the replacement of consumed items. Why capitalism and the free market system rules, instead of a controlled system like communism’s command economics or traditional economics or mercantilism, is because it jars and motivates us out of our natural laziness and complacency, behaviors that can be detrimental to our economic well being. Communism, in particular, allowed people to wallow in such behavior.

I can hear readers saying “yes, but” about capitalism and what I said. Life is full of yes, buts. For capitalism to remain credible and working for us there must always be a chorus of yes, buts. It must always be made to account for itself in order that it remain a viable, legitimate system. Communism, the last challenger of capitalism, didn't allow itself to be questioned or criticized and that is one big reason why it is no longer with us.

Progressivism

There is a new buzzword in American politics, progressivism. Many liberals have adopted it to express their political philosophy instead of sticking with the doctrine of liberalism, which has gotten a bad reputation. Conservatives have been very clever at painting liberalism as the ideology of people who are morally deficient and spendthrifts. Progressivism is a good alternative because it emphasizes the progressive qualities liberals harbor without making them look like political outcasts. Politically, progressivism casts a wide net. It can and does cross party lines. Why, even conservatives can be progressive. Some people view it as a ‘third way’.

A recent questionnaire asked, “What is the most important value for progressives?” It listed six choices, freedom, access, community, integrity, accountability and equality. I chose equality. The majority chose equality. Accountability came in second. I think one thing that makes for a progressive person is a willingness to adopt new ideas, to think anew and be forward looking in politics and human governance. New and forward looking ideas reinvigorate governments and initiate the reforms necessary to keep them from growing stale and to keep them legitimate, vital and abreast of changing times. Progressives are more flexible than non-progressives and tend to be more inclusive, hence their favoring equality over inequality. I understand why accountability is also at the top of the list, because it helps make equality possible. Equality requires a fairness and an openness that accountability encourages and facilitates. Accountability, along with its partner transparency, affords the recourse if equality is denied. Essentially, then, progressivism is about being an open society. Without it the reverse is true.

Equality is far and away the quality progressive people value most. Perhaps that is because if one doesn’t believe in equality, like between the sexes or between the races, one is not progressive. One who denies equality for all could be accused of being retroactive and living in the past, in a time warp.

“If one is not progressive, one exists in a time warp.” I looked up the meaning of warp and a synonym of it is ‘distort’. A definition of distort is “to give false or misleading account”. This explains why accountability also is high on the list as a value for progressives, because they dislike distortions. Progressives recognize distortions as being manipulative and a looking backwards. For example, one distortion and a throwback in time is the thinking that women are not equal or as capable as men because their brains are different. On the contrary, women have proven themselves mentally equal, given the opportunity. In some cultures it is believed that women don’t need the vote because their husband’s vote is enough, and anyway, she might cancel his vote out by voting differently. That is unprogressive in two ways because it presumes that women don’t have minds of their own and that women should be married. Another culturally distorted, backward idea is that workingwomen take jobs away from men. That argument is silly. In fact, the inclusion of women, as well as minorities, makes for a richer and more dynamic workforce.

I think the main interest behind the questionnaire was to explore moral values. Conservatives, with success, have pained themselves as the defenders of moral values and liberals as being, well, too loose with them and allowing them to deteriorate. Politically, conservatives have run and won on this issue. In the past liberalism/progressivism was connected more with economic issues. It was about forging policies that would foster economic equality and thus the betterment of society. The New Deal was an economically progressive act. So too were the social policies introduced in the sixties, like affirmative action. Today, the economic progressivism debate seem to have taken a more moral slant and questions whether too much liberalism and progress has occurred there. In taking the identity ‘progressivism’, liberals are hoping to deflect some of the moral criticism leveled against them. Progressives say that they deliberately haven’t been loose with moral values, but instead have practiced a social flexibility so that minority groups, feminists and homosexuals can feel like they also belonged and have equal rights. However, many conservatives have felt threatened buy such progressive moves and have seen them as being corrosive to society in general.

In the past progress has generally been associated with economics. The idea grew out of 18th century idea of liberty and the right to own property. The progressive/enlightened view that followed was that the road to a legitimate and meaningful form of human governance was through economic emancipation. America was the first to adopt this progressive approach. It seemed like the logical common ground to unity individuals from all over the world with diverse backgrounds and interests. The argument wasn’t yet made but there was a sort of tacit understanding that if citizens were economically empowered and made to feel that they had an economic stake in the system they would make better citizens and be more apt to contribute to America. The more people that are enfranchised and made to feel equal in this way the more people there are who participate in the system. Being an economic participant also brings with it recognition and accountability from peers and government. Since the enactment of affirmative action in the U.S. more people have become economically active, received educations, entered the workforce and have become consumers. Such people are more responsible and self-reliant, less dependent on the state and are more likely to contribute to the system. Because of this kind of progress American society has become more stable and resilient. The alternative has caused race riots and social tension. America first became liberal and progressive in the field of economics. Later progress moved into politics. Today there are signs that conservatives are challenging the economic and political progress of the past as being too liberal.

It has been said that globalization would role back progressive programs initiated by developed countries in order for them to be and remain economically competitive with countries that weren't burdened with such programs. Well, the other day there was an economic event that went against that argument. Toyota, the second largest carmaker in the world, chose for its new North American plan Ontario instead of Alabama. Alabama made financial concessions to Toyota for it to locate there. However, Toyota decided to locate in Ontario because it had access to a publicly funded universal health care system. That access would save Toyota a lot of money in health care costs in comparison to Alabama, which had no such system. In some quarters universal health care coverage has been view as an economic negative because it is another government expenditure that takes money away from individuals for the benefit of the community. However, this progressive move Ontario choose to make decades ago has enhances its competitive position today.

Toyota picked Ontario for another progressive reason, an educated and skilled workforce. It is not so much that Ontario is progressive in this area but that Alabama showed itself not to be. Toyota discovered that for its purpose Alabama had an inadequately trained work force. Not only that, the state had voted against a tax increase that could have improved that situation and one of the poorest educational systems in America. This incident debunks the theory, that globalization is anti progressive and that it tears away at progressive and humane social policies. On the contrary, as this incident showed, globalization justifies them.

Some people don’t believe in progress. I am not sure what they believe in. Do they believe that progress is an illusion? Behind the idea of progress is the idea that humanity can and will be gradually perfected. Maybe that is why people don’t believe in it, because they don’t see that humanity is being improved or perfected. Perhaps they see what we call progress as just the unleashing of a set of new problems that need solving. But maybe progress is about something else, about not remaining static or stationary, about movement, taking initiatives and making additions. Isn’t the chipping away at inequalities and repression signs of progress? I think one reason it is difficult to detect social progress is because the world is constantly changing and expanding. That puts pressure on past social progressive developments, often eroding or nullifying them. Progress, like everything else, also suffers from atrophy and fatigue. Progress, to remain progress, often has to be reworked and refigured to fit with the new variables and circumstances the world is constantly unleashing. It is a work in progress. Progress is learning from history, which is always happening, and moving beyond it. I think we have done that on several occasions.

Globalization is an anomaly?

I can’t let the article in The Guardian by James Howard Kunstler (Aug. 4) entitled “Globalization is an anomaly and time is running out” go unchallenged. I have concluded that Mr. Kunstler does not know very much about globalization. He thinks that it is something that it is removable from world events. That is ridiculous. Globalization has woven a web so strong that it can’t be separated from the rest of the human enterprise. It can’t be abandoned or allowed to collapse because the consequences would be horrendous. The world has become too dependent on it for it to end.

Globalization is about much more than economics, though economics is its foundation. From the tone of Mr. Kunstler’s article his dislike for globalization is really his dislike for America and the spreading of its ways around the world. (In globalization the center is now moving away from America as it did from Britain.) Resentment is not a good basis for an argument. Moreover, Mr. Kunstler should know that Britain and Europe were just as much or more responsible for globalization with their colonization, trade and insatiable appetite for exploration. On the other hand, globalization has been Britain and Europe’s savior. Without it there would have been no America or colonies to come to their rescue in two world wars.

Globalization ending on the scrap heap of history is as ridiculous an idea as the internet ending on the scrap heap of history. Speaking of the internet, it wouldn’t exist without globalization. Conversely, the internet reinforces and expands globalization. If globalization is an anomaly so is the internet and so is international travel and so is international trade and financing.

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times does sound a bit like a broken record when he goes on about the inevitabilities and virtues of globalization. But Kunstler and sores of other, such a John Ralston Saul, sound more broken when they go on with their whiny prognoses about globalization and how it is something unnatural and in its last throes. Globalization has made the world more secure. It debunked communism. One of the silliest comments I ever heard was from a British professor who said that 9/11 meant the end of globalization. From what I have seen the reverse has happened. Globalization has been strengthened by it. If anything, 9/11 showed a global solidarity, a determination for a more secure and ordered world, a proof that globalization is here to stay. World travel has increased since. So has world trade and finance. The quick responses to the recent global events like the tsunami and contagious diseases would not be possible without globalization because of the global cooperation it musters. Globalization is a form of containment that has a cauterizing effect, like the circling of wagons, in treating world disasters.

Kunstler talks about another era of globalization which ended in the early 20th century. He uses that collapse of globalization as a verification of its impending collapse today. Globalization, according to historians, thrived in the latter part of the 19th century. This is how I see it. The reason why that first round of globalization collapse, just before the WW l, is because the world wasn't ready for it. (Funny, nobody accused this instance of globalization of being an anomaly.) It collapsed because it was too sophisticated an enterprise for the world to fully adopt and implement at that time. The world didn't yet have all the pieces in place for its continued success. Sociopolitical attitudes and situations like colonialism and imperialism had to change before it could continue. Globalization didn’t end before WW l. It just lay dormant until a better time arrived. It really took off again with the advent of world bodies like the UN and the World Bank which made it more feasible. (I consider the first instance something like a dry run.) His saying that globalization is not a permanent fixture of the human condition is bunk. It has be a permanent fixture since the beginning of Civilization when it first started weaving its web. Globalization is the result of the unavoidable and inevitable interaction/interdependence of human activity.

For decades the West has been telling the rest of the world - China, India, Korea, Eastern Europe - to be more like it. Globalization has afforded that opportunity. It has expanded democracy and capitalism to many areas of the world that never had it, in some instances with great success, like with Germany and Japan. It shredded communism and other totalitarian regimes as it pushed and advance democracy and capitalism. Now Kunstler is suggesting that we abandon globalization. Perhaps one reason some people want to scrap globalization is because the ‘other side’ is getting to good at our game and ‘taking our resources’. Some people are isolationists, xenophobic and protectionist and that is also why they hate globalization.

What makes Kunstler think that the depletion of oil will bring an end to globalization? I think that since the world has become so interwoven with itself, the opposite will happen, just like with 9/11. The interdependence of the world and globalization has happened so as to tackle and overcome, as one, the many pitfalls of the modern world. Financially and economically we are too tangled up with each other to let it go any other way. It is as though the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith created it deliberately . We are bound by it. One thing we can do is improve on it. But we can’t extricate ourselves from it.