saving ink

the free agent paradox

It’s all too often that, in the name of orderliness and simplicity, a dichotomy is established when the matter at hand is far more complicated. Such, I believe, is the case in the age-old classification of human beings into leaders and followers.

At least one more category is necessary, and this one I’ll dub “free agents”. A free agent is neither a leader nor a follower. They work best on their own, keeping to their own schedules and habits, and completing tasks at their own pace and with their own modus operandi.

However, problems arise when free agents are forced into the leader/follower polarity. Free agents do not follow commands well. They will do assigned tasks, as long as they’re allowed to complete them in their own manner. But if they’re forced into a rigid structure, they naturally rebel, sensing that their perceived way of doing things is the only correct way, whether this feeling actually corresponds with reality or not.

Just the same, free agents do not make good leaders. Leaders often mistake a free agent’s independence and hard work as a sign of their desire for a leadership position, and free agents themselves often fall into this trap because that’s what others have come to expect of them. But free agents have no desire to hold power; inherently, they’re rather be left to their own devices, and having to rule over others is a distraction from their actual goals.

When leaders and followers congregate, a natural order is immediately established: the followers follow the leader (or occasionally leaders). However, when several free agents are in a situation where they must work together, a completely different pattern emerges: that of collaboration amongst equals.

So what system of government would be more reflective of this situation? A democracy - the best we’ve managed to come up with so far - by nature is composed of leaders and followers, with no place in its framework for free agents. Could this system be altered to include free agents in the most productive way, or would an altogether new system have to be established?

And, perhaps most of all, why do thoughts like this come to me in the shower after a cold, mostly sleepless night?

$3 billion to save humanity

Or, it’s all about resources.

A 10-person panel released a report for NASA today, titled “Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation”. In it, they basically suggested scrapping current plans for a space shuttle replacement in favor of a cheaper, simpler option, and sticking to shuffling astronauts to and fro the ISS rather than launching grand plans of lunar or Martian colonization - that is, if current funding continues on the same path. More importantly, they said this:

“About $3 billion a year more would be needed to have a robust exploration program, and even more than that to keep the existing program essentially on schedule, according to the report.”

(via this Washington Post article)

The future of humanity is worth just $3 billion a year. That’s less than two bucks per human being. That’s about one percent of what we spent on unemployment and welfare in 2008. It’s HALF of one percent of what we spent on social security. That piece of shit film called Titanic grossed two-thirds of that. TITANIC!

But because we’re fighting wars and saving our economy and wasting money on unnecessary medical procedures, it’s more than we can spare. And really, it seems so insignificant now - what good does going to Mars do for us, when we probably wouldn’t even get there for at least a decade or two. By that time, those in power today will be far more worried about the future of their own ageing organs to care about the future of the human race. In fact, no viable colony is likely to be possible in my lifetime. So why should I care? It’s so much easier to just be short-sighted.

Because I’m sick of living on a planet where my species is perpetually fighting over resources. Every conflict comes down to the fact that we live on a planet with limited surface area and limited materials and our evolutionary imperative drives us to accumulate those materials for our own kind - our family, our race, our ethnicity, our religion. Any time you hear that someone is fighting in the name of their god, they’re lying, and usually to themselves. They may hide behind a façade of religious fervor, but at some stage the conflict they’re so passionately maintaining is really about resources.

The only way to solve this is to let the scientists do their jobs and find a way to get some of us off of this rock. The resources on our planet are finite, and as long as we stay here we’re doomed as a species to keep fighting over them and eventually destroy ourselves. Only with improving our technology can we break this destructive cycle.

But don’t listen to me, listen to Stephen Hawking:

“I think the human race doesn’t have a future if it doesn’t go into space.”

And why do I care? Because I don’t want to be forgotten. I don’t want all of my achievements, whatever I leave behind me when I’m dead and buried, to go to waste if my species fails. I want my legacy, whether tangible or genetic*, to continue as long as possible.

So what can one do in this situation? Write your congressman, write to Obama? Encourage private sector innovation to fill in the gaps in NASA’s capabilities? Wait for the Chinese space program to get to Mars first? I’m all ears.

*By genetic legacy I mean the genetic legacy all of humanity shares from our common ancestors

Kara Thrace: No, I know fear. And I get scared, just not of dying.
Lee Adama: So then, what scares you?
Kara: Um… (pours drink) (apologizes for pouring drink) …being forgotten.

—

- Battlestar Galactica, episode “Daybreak part 2”, season 4

There are few moments in popular television that actually inspire deep contemplation, and I would venture to say that the show Battlestar Galactica had far more per episode than most do in their entire history - assuming they have any at all (ahem, reality television). So much so, that even though it’s been months since I watched the whole series in a few weeks - and then re-watched most of it - there are moments that I’m still analizying and picking apart to learn life lessons from. Like this one.

I think this quote resonates with me more than any other in the series, because it gets to the bottom of what it means to be alive. Death is a part of life just as much as cell division and protein formation and the many other less visible aspects of it are. It is inevitable, and though we’ve managed as humans to prolong life and prevent death as a consequence of many diseases, we cannot stop the process itself - nor should we. Thus, to fear death is as irrational as if one were to fear the earth’s rotation or the laws of thermodynamics. And consequently, equally irrational is it to claim to know what happens when one dies - or to create fantastic stories of an afterlife we can look forward to if everything works out in our favor.

But being forgotten - that is a legitimate fear. Because if one is forgotten, that means when one dies and their molecules begin the long process of being recycled into all other types of objects, both living and non-, there really remains no trace of that individual’s existence. All of the achievements, the stresses and struggles and failures and victories, for naught. This brings an interesting thought experiment, akin to the tree in the forest puzzle - if no one is there to record another’s achievements, are they still achievements?

And yet, after a point, we are all forgotten. Even those greatest amongst us, who have volumes and volumes of literature dedicated to the facts of their existence. Paper decays; memories, when passed from generation to generation, become distorted; even the digital bits are eventually recycled for new purposes. And even if one’s biography survives until the end of human existence, or the end of the universe for that matter, if the entropy of the universe is always increasing to the point where we end up in a cold, dead, absolute zero system then…

(pours drink)

Oh, I’m sorry. I think it’s time to contemplate this further.

on "wealthcare"

“Ultimately the Objectivist movement failed for the same reason that communism failed: it tried to make its people live by the dictates of a totalizing ideology that failed to honor the realities of human existence.”

- Wealthcare | The New Republic

Disclaimer: As popular as Ayn Rand-bashing has become these days, in the text below I will defend her to some extent. You have been warned.

There is a lot I could write about this article, and I hope at some point I actually have the time to do some more research and write down every point I’d like to make. However, right now I’ll try to focus on the most important premise I found in this story - after a brief aside.

The overall article presents several very good arguments, but in many parts is guilty of the very sin it’s accusing Rand and her modern-day followers of: oversimplification. While I first read The Fountainhead at the age of 16 and Atlas Shrugged at the age of 17 and initially embraced both with a near-religious fervor, I’ve come back to both books many times in the decade since, and as my worldview changed with life experience, so did my readings of them. But to dismiss Rand’s works as capitalist propaganda is to completely miss the broader picture.

There are many lessons I learned from Rand that I still apply today: hard work matters. One should strive to be the best at what they do, and do every job - no matter how seemingly insignificant - to the best of their ability. I, as an individual, have the right to pursue my happiness in a way that does not impede in another individual’s pursuit of the same. I should not expect others to do my work for me. Life is absolutely worth living. I should only pursue relationships with those whose values I respect. It is harmful to indulge in meaningless relations, sexual or otherwise. One should surround themselves with people of quality, of moral character. One should judge art by its quality. Above all, one should hold themselves to the highest moral standards, and know that morality comes not from religion or other people, but from within.

These are values I strive to live by. And guess what? I voted for Obama.

That is because on an individual level, these are valuable lessons - but it is when one attempts to apply them to society as a whole that the theory breaks down in practice. And that’s the point I’m trying to get to, and which the above quote hits upon so elegantly:

Absolutes, whether written in novels or applied by force in reality, break down when human nature is involved, because human beings are imperfect creatures. It is why utopias, no matter how enticing and workable they seem on paper, inevitably fail when enacted in real life. And that’s why Rand’s version of capitalism and her perfect heroes - even those that start out flawed like Dagny or Rearden - do not mirror the actual world. They are a Photoshopped ideals, like models on the covers of fashion magazines. At best, they inspire those who read her novels to strive towards perfection. At worst, they allow for the kind of rationalizing that so many who have earned their fortunes today, not necessarily through hard work but through circumstance and luck, use to decry any attempts to change the status quo, to make up for the failings of human nature through intelligently implemented legislation.

Unlike her supermen, Rand herself had many failings, which the article lists in great detail. However, to blame her for the idiocy seen in today’s tea baggers and the like is going too far. Atlas in particular names many examples of rich industrialists who use their political influence to demonize those whom they find disagreeable, and she rightfully paints them as morally bankrupt. There are plenty of rich characters depicted as “leeches” (James Taggart) and plenty of poor characters shown to have moral integrity on par with the “producers” (Cherryl Brooks). When translated to reality, the philandering CEO spouting his political views on FOX would be seen as a villain, not a hero, in Rand’s world. But that detail is so often missed when all of the many theses and theories of Rand are boiled down to one simple equation: capitalism=good.

Our idealism must have limits. Our philosophies cannot ignore the everyday realities of the human condition. Any grand notion, any ideology that can motivate millions to die in its name should take into account the fact that someone, somewhere, will fuck it all up.

A is A only in the realm of science, of the physical, where rules exist that can be counted on to be constant. But human nature is not that reliable; it exists in shades of grey, of As qualified by exceptions and special cases. That’s why, when large groups of flawed humans gather in cities and nations and societies, governments are set up to try to balance the society’s ideals with the pragmatic facts of everyday life. Because in reality, those who become rich do so thanks to circumstances as often as through hard work. Those who stay poor can blame their place of birth more often than their laziness. If we’re really striving to be better, to be better as a society as well as as individuals, than we need practical solutions, not lofty moralizing. And we need to stop shouting obscenities and start listening.

Murdoch startled the publishing world when he uttered a few sentences that were as simple as they were revolutionary, such as: “Quality journalism isn’t cheap.” That led to his decision to start charging for online use of his many newspapers around the globe in the coming months. If Murdoch has his way, the days of free culture on the Internet will be numbered.

—

Paid Content: The Days of the Internet Free Lunch Are Numbered - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

I think this, and the paragraph that precedes it in the article, show more than anything that Rupert Murdoch’s days are numbered - the same goes for all of the people that think like him and don’t understand the role of “free” as the business model for this century.

Murdoch reminds me of an aging record company exec, shaking his fist at those “rapscallions” that he thinks will be the downfall of the music industry. What he doesn’t realize is that journalism, just like the music industry, is not going anywhere - it’s just transforming. The problem is that while no one knows yet what it’s transforming into, those like Murdoch are trying to hold on to the old ways, completely ignorant of what’s actually going on.

Murdoch underestimates the power of those of us who have grown up barely remembering a time before the Internet (or even the younger generation, who really don’t remember a pre-WWW existence). As this generation comes into power, these old models will be thrown out the window, no matter how hard those like Murdoch cling onto them.

6th gear

Having a brain in overdrive mode is an exhilirating yet often frustrating feeling: that moment when thousands of thoughts are racing about at once, pushing to get out, and both your limbs and the technology around you is completely inadequate in comparison. Of course, the burn-out that follows can have crushing effects, but it’s not enough to deter one from the endless pursuit of more, more, more.

This thought was brought to you by caffeine, alcohol, nicotine and insomnia.

In general, we do not allow graphic or gratuitous violence on YouTube,” the company said in a statement. “However, we make exceptions for videos that have educational, documentary, or scientific value. The limitations being placed on mainstream media reporting from within Iran make it even more important that citizens in Iran be able to use YouTube to capture their experiences for the world to see.

—

Stark Images, Uploaded to the World - NYTimes.com

This is big. Between this and the Obama Administration asking Twitter to delay an update so that protesting Iranians can keep on tweeting, the limitations of censorship are crumbling thanks to the Internet and the ever-increasing participation of citizen journalists.

Maybe this is the way journalism will go. Instead of being with a story every step of the way, from compiling first-hand information to gathering materials to writing the story to submitting to an editor, a journalist’s job will transform to be more of a filter than an originator. Those actually witnessing the story will capture it, upload the images, and then it will be the journalist’s job to make meaning of this mass of information. While this is one way broke newsrooms can keep on reporting without spending fortunes on foreign offices and airfare, one has to wonder what will be lost when those covering a story have to rely on others to be their eyes and ears.

My admittedly strange opinion is that we need to try harder with print. We can’t just give up on it. Inevitably there will be some loss of newspaper readership, but even that will stabilize. Not everyone wants all their news online. Do we all want to look at screens from 8am to 10pm? There’s room in the world for both online and paper. It doesn’t have to be zero-sum. I guess that’s one of the things that’s always frustrating to hear, that the rise of the Internet means the death of print. There’s always this zero-sum way of painting any given industry or trend, while the reality will be more nuanced. I think newspapers that adjust a bit will survive and still do great work. But we do need to give people reasons to pay money for the physical object. The landscape right now does require that we in the print world try harder. We have to think of the things that print does best, and do those things better than ever before. We need to use the paper, maximize the physical product.

—

Dave Eggers

Maybe because I’m involved in both worlds, but again and again I can’t help but grasp the parallels between the music industry and the newspaper industry. Like in this quote by Dave Eggers, I can clearly see one way the latter can go.

Mp3s did not kill the CD. Hell, the CD didn’t even kill vinyl like everyone said it would. Sure, sales of both have gone down, which was inevitable when a non-material format was introduced that could be replicated indefinitely for free. But people buy vinyl for the sound, buy CDs for the artwork, buy either because they’re collectors or because they want to get the band’s autographs at the concert or for any number of reasons that translate to sales of physical products.

The same can be said for newspapers and books. How many people bought a copy of their local paper the day Obama was elected? Hell, mine is still hanging over my desk at work. How many people buy a new copy of a book they already own because a new edition has come out with a different cover and new forward by the author? Maybe not enough to single-handedly keep the industry afloat, but enough to ensure that print will not simply disappear overnight.

Like the obsessive record collector with shelves of alphabetically arranged vinyls, the obsessive bookworm will continue purchasing books. The obsessive news junkie will keep savoring the daily trip to the newsstand. But the industries need to adapt to a model when these people are a minority, not the majority. They need to be profitable, to be able pay musicians and journalists and editors based on a digital model, while still producing the physical objects for those who want to purchase them. It’s never going to be black or white, print or digital - the model needs to encompass both, but in different degrees than it has ever done before in the past.