For my first entry under "issues" (finally!), I'm going to talk about something I'm almost completely sure no other candidate will talk about at all.
Almost everyone is now in recognition of the fact that technology is moving at a very fast pace. And some, given this recognition, are pointing out that we should be doing more by way of preparing ourselves for the new kinds of dangers that this poses.
But what almost no one recognizes is that there is a very compelling argument that technology in the next many decades will actually move a hell of a lot faster. I never even thought about this until I read Ray Kurzweil's THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR (Viking 2005). This is, in large part, a book-length argument for this conclusion. But the core idea is actually rather simple.
Before turning to the core idea of the argument, it will help to remind ourselves of the idea of exponential growth. LINEAR GROWTH has to do with growth by way of a constant ADDITION FACTOR, per unit of time. (Strictly, the unit with respect to which we are measuring growth need not be time, but, except for an analogy/example to come very soon, I think it'll be easiest if I put it particularly in terms of time.) In contrast, EXPONENTIAL GROWTH has to do with growth by way of a constant MULTIPLICATION FACTOR. In the beginning, linear growth and exponential growth look rather similar, but as things progress, exponential growth begins to outpace linear growth in a rather extraordinary way.
An example (THE stock example) can illustrate both facts. Consider a standard 8x8 chessboard, which thus has a total of 64 squares. Put one penny on one of the squares in a corner. In both cases (linear growth and exponential growth), we will move square by square, increasing the amount of money on each square, until we have hit the 64th square. (It will help to imagine that we fill up one row, or column, before moving on to the next.)
For linear growth, our money will grow by a constant addition factor, let's say +2. Since there is one penny on our first square, there will be three pennies on our second square, five pennies on our third square, and so on. This means, at the end of our first row, we will have 15 pennies (15 cents) on square 8. And this means, at the final end of all of this, we will have 127 pennies ($1.27) on square 64.
In contrast, for exponential growth, our money will grow by a constant multiplication factor, let's say x2. Since there is one penny in our first square, there will be two pennies on our second square, four pennies on our third square, and so on. This means, at the end of our first row, we will have 128 pennies ($1.28) on square 8. Although quite a bit more than 15 cents (= what we have on square 8 with linear growth), it's not crazily different, and the initial stages were very similar (1,3,5,7 for linear growth, 1,2,4,8 for exponential growth). However, at the final end of all of this (of all of this exponential growth), we will have 10,223,391,840,850,775,808 (2 to the 63rd power) pennies ($102,233,918,408,507,758.08). I'm assuming everyone can agree this is amazingly gigantic (and shockingly larger than 127 pennies = $1.27).
(Not being able to find a traditional or online calculator that would give me all the digits, I had to do a significant portion of the calculation by hand, so this figure might involve a very small human error. But even so, this still gives the basic magnitude, namely, well over a quintillion dollars. It goes: thousand, million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion. Which gives us about one-tenth a trillion trillion, or one hundred thousand billion billion.)
Having reminded ourselves of the power of exponential growth, we can now understand the three claims that together make up the core idea of Kurzweil's argument.
FIRST, up to now, technology has been growing at an exponential rate.
As I understand it, almost anyone with decent knowledge in (as I'll here put it) technology studies will grant this fact. This is mostly the result of empirical historical knowledge. But there is also theoretical explanation to back it: the latest technology, which works better and faster than the previous generation of technology, can be used in creating the next generation of technology; so technology builds on itself in cumulative fashion.
SECOND, there is very good reason to think technology will continue growing at an exponential rate.
Some commentators have offered reasons for thinking that this is not true, but Kurzweil very carefully and elaborately offers rebuttals to all of these, almost always in part by way of reference to new technologies already in development (often in the prototype stage, though sometimes only in the conceptual development stage).
THIRD, there is very good reason to think we are about to approach the "knee" of the curve that represents all this exponential growth of technology from the past to the current time to the future. This "knee" is what Kurzweil and others call "the Singularity" - it is the transition period from slow exponential growth in early stages to extraordinarily rapid exponential growth in later stages.
When represented visually/graphically, every exponential curve has a "knee": a short transition from slow growth (graphically: low slope) to rapid growth (graphically: high slope). For actual graphs of a helpful sort, see some of the early pages of Kurzweil's book.
(This part of Kurzweil's arguments is less clear. But, given that the multiplication factor involved in [perfectly regular] exponential growth is constant, whether or not we are at the so-called "knee", I really don't see that Kurzweil needs this third claim. Which would be especially nice since, as far as I can tell, the perceived location of the so-called "knee" will depend on arbitrary scaling factors when we represent the exponential curve graphically. I'm well aware that some mathematical background is needed to make full sense of what I've said in this parenthetical comment, so if it seems obscure to you, just ignore it. You can do that and still fully digest the basic gist of what Kurzweil is getting at.)
Given the speed of exponential growth, and given some of the examples Kurzweil gives of future technologies already in various stages of development, I claim that the US government should be doing a hell of a lot more in preparation for protecting US citizens (and all people around the globe more generally) from the following worries and dangers:
1. One to two decades: easily biologically engineered pathogens.
2. Two to four decades: easily synthetically engineered pathogenic nanobots.
3. Three to six decades: evil (or at least un-human-concerned) artificial intelligence at human-level or beyond-human-level intelligence.
These three are actually three that Kurzweil himself pays close attention to near the end of his book. (I would give you the exact chapter except for the fact that my copy is currently out on loan to a friend.)
But there are other things to worry about:
4. Privacy: I here don't have in mind US e-passports which are very easily read by not-necessarily-benevolent-or-even-neutral third parties (as reported in Scientific American, Sep 2008 pp. 72-77, where all sorts of very important privacy concerns are discussed in very helpful detail), though such things are definitely a big concern that the US government is mostly ignoring.
Rather, I have in mind the following question: is the US government doing anything now to prepare for the possibility, for example, that within one to three decades super-spy-satellites will allow the government (or other agents/entities who have their own such satellite, paid for rental time on such a satellite, or hacked into such a satellite, etc.) to know virtually anything it wants about anyone at any time? Not at all.
5. The disappearance of sleep: is the US government doing anything now to prepare for the possibility that within one to three decades, scientists will have figured out ways to make it so that humans don't need to sleep, drastically changing the economy and human nightlife? Not at all.
6. Eternal life: is the US government doing anything to prepare for the possibility that within one decade (no joke - if you doubt, do some of your own research into the science of aging) the knowledge will exist to indefinitely extend human life (and canine life, and feline life, etc.), and the extreme likelihood that within three decades this knowledge will exist? Not at all.
7. Pleasure machines: is the US government doing anything to prepare for the likelihood that within one to three decades, droves of people will be spending enormous amounts of time hooking themselves up to machines which either directly produce pleasure, or indirectly do so by way of providing the machine-user with fully-life-like experiences of the user's choosing (these could have any nature: sexual, athletic, musical, intellectual, even political)? Not at all.
8. Boundless energy and cheap replication machines: is the US government doing anything to prepare for the possibility that within this century economies (or the one global economy) will be shockingly different in virtue of the fact that -- given the existence of boundless energy (say as the product of ultra-efficent and ultra-cheap solar panels, or as the product of genuinely effective fusion reactors) and cheap replication machines in the spirit of Star Trek (no joke, check out what Kurzweil has to say about some nanotechnology applications that are already in fairly detailed stages of conceptual development) -- almost no one will need to work in any traditional sense? Not at all.
9. Genetic engineering: is the US government doing anything now to prepare for the likelihood that within one to two decades the knowledge will exist allowing people to have their children genetically engineered to have all sorts of features (including "non-natural" ones from the relatively minimal, like purple irises, to the quite dramatic, like an extra functional appendage)? Not at all.
10. Non-evil, non-unconcerned artificial intelligence: is the US government doing anything now to prepare for questions that will need to be answered once we have, in the next two to five decades, produced near-human-like, human-like, or beyond-human-like artificial intelligence? Not at all.
And here I don't have in mind (as in 3. above) evil artificial intelligence and the like, but other questions like: Will people be allowed to order/purchase tailor-made artificial intelligences? Will artificial intelligences be given the right to vote, or other standard political and economic rights? Will artificial intelligences themselves be allowed to work on producing even smarter artificial intelligences (or less obviously AI artificial intelligences - think the new BattleStar Galactica)? It may seem that the answers to some of these questions are easy, but I think that reaction would be a mistake. It's one thing in the abstract to say, e.g., we should not give artificial intelligences the right to vote, it's another thing to say that when they have been given fully-human-like synthetic bodies and they have gathered "in the town square" to engage in political protest of a very traditional and compelling sort. And, it's one thing in the abstract to say we should not allow people to order tailor-made artificial intelligences with fully-human-like synthetic bodies, and it's another thing to stick with this answer in practice when droves of people, presented with the actual technological and economic possibility, want to place an order (given their failed romantic lives, or whatever), especially when you might very well be among those people tempted by such a possibility (or at least those people who find a part of themselves really wanting to exploit such a possibility, and so place such an order).
The way I have posed these questions on my list might make it seem that I am anti-technology or, at least, that I wish technology would not grow any further. This, in fact, is not at all the case. In trying to argue that the government is doing pathetically little to prepare ourselves for such technological growth, and the worries and dangers that poses, I have been emphasizing the negative possibilities that, if the government were to get its ass in gear, they could help protect us from. But all sorts of great things are very likely also on their way. In fact, many people, at least at a personal level, would welcome many of the developments on my list (such as lack of a need to sleep, eternal life, pleasure machines, etc.). And there are all sorts of other less dramatic future likelihoods: an all-purpose way to fight viral infections, self-driving cars, memory chips implanted directly in the brain, etc.
In fact, I've suspected for quite awhile now that it will be technology, not the "human spirit", that will save us from various ills. This, I hope it is clear, is not to say that there aren't lots of people trying very hard to make the world a better place. And it is not to say that humans COULDN'T make the world a better place (e.g., completely eradicate starvation) without newer, fancier technology. (In fact, as I understand it, pretty much all the evidence points in the direction of the view that starvation, right now, is completely eradicable.) The problem is that the current overall social and economic structures of the globe prevent (whether, when it comes to individual bits of the structure, intentionally or not) these forces for good from being able to properly mobilize themselves and existing resources to make it happen.
Even if Kurzweil is wrong, once you read his book, it is plainly obvious that, rather than being a crackpot, he is a brilliant thinker and has at minimum put together a compelling argument. (I am in fact right now voice-dictating this on voice-recognition software that descends from software he initially developed. In particular, I am using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 9, almost universally recognized as the best voice-recognition software on the market right now.)
And, when it comes to prediction of the future, where there can be no certainties, one has got to pay attention to likelihoods. And in these terms, I find it hard to deny that Kurzweil has presented an extremely strong argument.
He is not alone in his prediction of near future incredibly drastic growth of technology. Much of the disagreement among techno-experts themselves simply concerns how optimistic or pessimistic we should be about the results of this growth. My whole point in this blog entry has been to say the US government, completely contrary to what it is now doing (since it is now doing virtually nothing), should do all it can to make positive results as likely as possible.
In any case, I am telling you that, as president, I will do as much as I can to rectify this complete dearth of government action (indeed, government attention) in this respect. The other candidates, in contrast, will say absolutely nothing about any of this.
ADDED 9/19/08:
A BSU colleague of mine quite rightly pointed out to me that the exponential growth I described above is actually only a special case of exponential growth, what is usually called "geometric growth". Not being in physical possession of my copy of Kurzweil's book at this moment, I cannot check and let you know which term (or whether both) Kurzweil himself uses.
Basically, for the mathematically inclined, exponential growth generally is where: y = b (a constant, one which can always be e given compensating adjustments to constants c and d, which immediately follow) to the cx+d power. Geometric growth is the special case where c=1 and d=0. Usual cases of geometric growth (such as the chessboard illustration above) set b=2. In such cases, we can't get equivalent functions by letting b=e (or anything else other than 2) since we are disallowing compensating adjustments given the insistence that c=1 and d=0 for geometric growth.
Actually, treating functions simply a something like sets of ordered pairs of numbers (or mathematical entities more generally), what I just said makes me realize that we could distinguish two notions. Letting "gg" stand for "geometrical growth/growing", these two notions are: gg-functions, and gg-representations of functions. Then, at least one way of understanding the former in terms of the latter is "having at least one gg-representation". But I won't pursue this any further here. Except to say that perhaps a gg-function can be equivalently but independently defined as "exponential function where d=0". This seems intuitively right to me, but I've done no checking, and my mathematical intuitions about such matters are surely to be treated as possessing almost no trustworthiness, given how long it's been and what it was even then.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
self-promotion
Since we are trying to get your votes, all of us political candidates engage (quite reasonably) in self-promotion. We note our good qualities, suggest our opponents are inferior in those respects, etc.
So, please, when I say things like "as a professional philosopher, I am a more skilled and trained general thinker than most others", don't react simply by thinking I'm a pompous ass. Rather, I simply ask that you consider whether or not it is true. For example, if you like, investigate whether or not I am a professional philosopher. Better, read a lot of my blog entries and check out firsthand my qualities as a thinker. And then also, of course, if you conclude that I am a highly skilled and trained general thinker - consider whether or not that is as important as I claim it is.
For comparison, when McCain notes over and over again his much greater political experience than Obama, no one's reaction is "what a pompous ass". Instead, people (quite rightly) consider just how much greater McCain's political experience is, and, to the extent that it is, how much that matters in and of itself. (To illustrate - if you ask me - when Obama notes that what is ultimately important is good judgment, and experience is simply one among many ways to acquire good judgment, he is spot on.)
So, please, when I say things like "as a professional philosopher, I am a more skilled and trained general thinker than most others", don't react simply by thinking I'm a pompous ass. Rather, I simply ask that you consider whether or not it is true. For example, if you like, investigate whether or not I am a professional philosopher. Better, read a lot of my blog entries and check out firsthand my qualities as a thinker. And then also, of course, if you conclude that I am a highly skilled and trained general thinker - consider whether or not that is as important as I claim it is.
For comparison, when McCain notes over and over again his much greater political experience than Obama, no one's reaction is "what a pompous ass". Instead, people (quite rightly) consider just how much greater McCain's political experience is, and, to the extent that it is, how much that matters in and of itself. (To illustrate - if you ask me - when Obama notes that what is ultimately important is good judgment, and experience is simply one among many ways to acquire good judgment, he is spot on.)
the target of my various claims
I am prompted to say the following by a friend's comment on some of what I had to say in "the most difficult presidential decision" under "commentaries". Although this friend was very sympathetic to what I had to say, he noted the following. (Especially from a utilitarian perspective, which I have already noted in some blog entries that I endorse) it can be sometimes perfectly reasonable for a president (or other elected official) to say something he or she does not believe, or to say something with a level of confidence that he or she does not think is actually warranted. This is because it can sometimes be necessary in order to have some needed/important effect, e.g. inspiring in the populace confidence in their president, a crucial means to the president's being effectively able to get things done.
I totally understand my friend's point, and agree. To explain, it will be extremely helpful for me here to explicitly note that, when it comes to claims I make (especially under "issues" and commentaries") of the "agree", "stupid", etc. sort, there will usually be one of two particular kinds of targets I will have in mind:
1. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the CONTENT itself of some claim. So, for example, in the blog entry mentioned above, when I criticized Laura Bush, her husband, and others for saying things like "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make", what I was most exactly criticizing was the TRUTH of that claim. I argued simply that it was FALSE (indeed, wildly false).
2. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the SAYING/MAKING of some claim (or something similar) on the part of one or more other individuals. So, to use the same example again: in the blog entry mentioned above, nothing I said was directly to the effect that it is stupid or unreasonable for people like Laura Bush, her husband, and others to say things like that. I am perfectly happy to admit that it is sometimes wise and reasonable for politicians and elected officials to say something they believe is false or say something with a greater level of confidence than they actually think is warranted. (More on this, in part, when I start talking more directly about politicking and what I think are frequent unfair charges of "sliminess" and the like.)
Now, when it comes to the SAYING/MAKING of the particular claim "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make" by someone like Laura Bush, I think the issue is trickier. On the one hand, since I think this claim is false (indeed, wildly false) for the reasons explained, a mark against MAKING it is the following. One thereby helps to promote false beliefs on matters of harm and death, which can lead to bad decision on the part of those with these false beliefs. Further, one thereby more indirectly promotes later bad decisions on the part of elected officials who feel the need to satisfy their constituents who have these (false) beliefs. On the other hand, given the current political context, especially the war in Iraq, and given a very common current false beliefs on such matters, NOT MAKING such a claim might be unfairly interpreted by others as expressing a morally problematic whimsical attitude toward the lives of US soldiers (or something similarly bad). My own best guess right now is that, nonetheless, MAKING such a claim is (on the whole) a bad idea and unreasonable. That is, MAKING that EXACT CLAIM, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION. If, instead, what were claimed was something like "sending troops into harm's way is always a very difficult decision for a president", then it would be a better idea and more reasonable (even though still, as I see it, strictly speaking false).
I have drawn this distinction rather narrowly in terms of the CONTENT of a claim and the MAKING of a claim. I strongly suspect the distinction generalizes in intuitive and natural ways, but I won't (at least right now) try to explicitly articulate those ways. I note this simply because I'm quite sure that some of the things I say in some of my blog entries can be understood in terms of this distinction only when we think of it as generalized.
From here on out, I will try to be clearer about what exactly is the target of any claim I make, though inevitably I will fail to be perfect in this regard. If you, as a reader of my blog, are ever unclear on what exactly is the target, do let me know by way of adding a comment, and I will try to be clearer in a reply. Or, if you think I'm just wrong, also let me know by way of adding a comment. Then perhaps (in some cases) I can reply by noting you misunderstood (through my failure to be maximally clear the first time around) the nature of my target.
I totally understand my friend's point, and agree. To explain, it will be extremely helpful for me here to explicitly note that, when it comes to claims I make (especially under "issues" and commentaries") of the "agree", "stupid", etc. sort, there will usually be one of two particular kinds of targets I will have in mind:
1. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the CONTENT itself of some claim. So, for example, in the blog entry mentioned above, when I criticized Laura Bush, her husband, and others for saying things like "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make", what I was most exactly criticizing was the TRUTH of that claim. I argued simply that it was FALSE (indeed, wildly false).
2. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the SAYING/MAKING of some claim (or something similar) on the part of one or more other individuals. So, to use the same example again: in the blog entry mentioned above, nothing I said was directly to the effect that it is stupid or unreasonable for people like Laura Bush, her husband, and others to say things like that. I am perfectly happy to admit that it is sometimes wise and reasonable for politicians and elected officials to say something they believe is false or say something with a greater level of confidence than they actually think is warranted. (More on this, in part, when I start talking more directly about politicking and what I think are frequent unfair charges of "sliminess" and the like.)
Now, when it comes to the SAYING/MAKING of the particular claim "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make" by someone like Laura Bush, I think the issue is trickier. On the one hand, since I think this claim is false (indeed, wildly false) for the reasons explained, a mark against MAKING it is the following. One thereby helps to promote false beliefs on matters of harm and death, which can lead to bad decision on the part of those with these false beliefs. Further, one thereby more indirectly promotes later bad decisions on the part of elected officials who feel the need to satisfy their constituents who have these (false) beliefs. On the other hand, given the current political context, especially the war in Iraq, and given a very common current false beliefs on such matters, NOT MAKING such a claim might be unfairly interpreted by others as expressing a morally problematic whimsical attitude toward the lives of US soldiers (or something similarly bad). My own best guess right now is that, nonetheless, MAKING such a claim is (on the whole) a bad idea and unreasonable. That is, MAKING that EXACT CLAIM, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION. If, instead, what were claimed was something like "sending troops into harm's way is always a very difficult decision for a president", then it would be a better idea and more reasonable (even though still, as I see it, strictly speaking false).
I have drawn this distinction rather narrowly in terms of the CONTENT of a claim and the MAKING of a claim. I strongly suspect the distinction generalizes in intuitive and natural ways, but I won't (at least right now) try to explicitly articulate those ways. I note this simply because I'm quite sure that some of the things I say in some of my blog entries can be understood in terms of this distinction only when we think of it as generalized.
From here on out, I will try to be clearer about what exactly is the target of any claim I make, though inevitably I will fail to be perfect in this regard. If you, as a reader of my blog, are ever unclear on what exactly is the target, do let me know by way of adding a comment, and I will try to be clearer in a reply. Or, if you think I'm just wrong, also let me know by way of adding a comment. Then perhaps (in some cases) I can reply by noting you misunderstood (through my failure to be maximally clear the first time around) the nature of my target.
why vote for me (much shorter version)
1. because you like my perspective on politics and political issues, and so find me vote-worthy in the hopes of effecting some political change by promoting this perspective.
2. because you think I would be a good president.
Of course, since this is the much shorter version, you're going to have to read other blog entries to have any idea whether or not you think either of these things.
Also, I reverse the order of these two (as compared to the much longer version), since I realized I should emphasize: given that I have no real shot at winning, I am primarily focused on getting votes from those under 1. But, of course, I would also be happy to get votes from those under 2. In fact, since I do think I would be a good president, and since I have a thought that perhaps one day, if I keep continuing to run, I might have a real shot at winning, I will here and there say things more directly related to 2.
2. because you think I would be a good president.
Of course, since this is the much shorter version, you're going to have to read other blog entries to have any idea whether or not you think either of these things.
Also, I reverse the order of these two (as compared to the much longer version), since I realized I should emphasize: given that I have no real shot at winning, I am primarily focused on getting votes from those under 1. But, of course, I would also be happy to get votes from those under 2. In fact, since I do think I would be a good president, and since I have a thought that perhaps one day, if I keep continuing to run, I might have a real shot at winning, I will here and there say things more directly related to 2.
Monday, September 15, 2008
on calling things "stupid"
(This entry should probably be in "other", but it's important enough that I want to put it where it's most likely to be read, namely, "basics".)
In some of my blog entries I will inevitably call (in fact, already have called) something "stupid" or the like. (Perhaps I will even call someONE stupid. Face it, there are stupid people out there, even though most stupid things are said by non-stupid people; even the very smart say stupid things here and there). As a fringe candidate who is not running with the thought that he actually might win, I'm not going to worry about being PC; so when I think something is stupid, I will feel free to call it that. There simply is no way to be nicer about it without actually changing the content of what you're saying. (There are, of course, ways to be meaner about it, such as calling something "fucking retarded". Those ways I will happily avoid.)
In fact, I'm sure at some point between now and Election Day, I will say one or more stupid things (even by my own standards) in my blog entries (if I haven't already). When you think you have identified such a thing, please call me on it. Add a comment to the relevant blog entry, tell me it's stupid, and tell me why you think that; if you like, even title your comment "you said something stupid". If I agree, I will admit I said something stupid, and if I don't, I will explain why (to the degree that time-constraints allow).
This is politics, and it has much much far too significant impact on all our lives not to call something stupid "stupid", just to avoid hurting some feelings. (Of course, if you really think you have a shot at winning the presidency, then you will avoid doing this, but only because it will be strategically wise in the face of the fact that many do not appreciate what I am here saying.)
Be careful to note this is a very different thing from saying it is okay to GRATUITOUSLY hurt feelings.
In some of my blog entries I will inevitably call (in fact, already have called) something "stupid" or the like. (Perhaps I will even call someONE stupid. Face it, there are stupid people out there, even though most stupid things are said by non-stupid people; even the very smart say stupid things here and there). As a fringe candidate who is not running with the thought that he actually might win, I'm not going to worry about being PC; so when I think something is stupid, I will feel free to call it that. There simply is no way to be nicer about it without actually changing the content of what you're saying. (There are, of course, ways to be meaner about it, such as calling something "fucking retarded". Those ways I will happily avoid.)
In fact, I'm sure at some point between now and Election Day, I will say one or more stupid things (even by my own standards) in my blog entries (if I haven't already). When you think you have identified such a thing, please call me on it. Add a comment to the relevant blog entry, tell me it's stupid, and tell me why you think that; if you like, even title your comment "you said something stupid". If I agree, I will admit I said something stupid, and if I don't, I will explain why (to the degree that time-constraints allow).
This is politics, and it has much much far too significant impact on all our lives not to call something stupid "stupid", just to avoid hurting some feelings. (Of course, if you really think you have a shot at winning the presidency, then you will avoid doing this, but only because it will be strategically wise in the face of the fact that many do not appreciate what I am here saying.)
Be careful to note this is a very different thing from saying it is okay to GRATUITOUSLY hurt feelings.
"The Audacity of Hope"
So Obama's most recent book (which I hope to read very soon) has a perfectly fine subtitle: "Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream". But the main title, "The Audacity of Hope", is just stupid. Hope, given its very nature, can very reasonably and coherently be had on the slimmest of bases. So, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as audacious hope. Perhaps audacious belief, but not audacious hope. (Even audacious belief is quite a stretch since, although there are lots of things that need a hell of a lot of improvement, current circumstances are not so extremely terrible that belief in future possibilities would count as audacious.) Now, if the main title had been "Audacious Confidence In Myself As the Savior of America", then the "audacious" part would have been perfectly appropriate (and, as an added bonus, it would've shown that he had some balls).
ADDED 9/17/08:
First, I should clarify. What I think (for the reasons explained above) is that the title itself, more or less in terms of CONTENT, is stupid. I am by no means claiming that Obama's CHOOSING this as a title was stupid; in fact, it was probably politically savvy and inspired some. (See the important distinction drawn in "the target of my various claims" under "basics".)
Second, I am in no way claiming that having a book with a stupid title CONTENT-wise (or even being someone who made a stupid CHOICE of a book title) is by itself evidence that the person in question would not be a good president (or is not a respectable individual, etc.).
ADDED 9/17/08:
First, I should clarify. What I think (for the reasons explained above) is that the title itself, more or less in terms of CONTENT, is stupid. I am by no means claiming that Obama's CHOOSING this as a title was stupid; in fact, it was probably politically savvy and inspired some. (See the important distinction drawn in "the target of my various claims" under "basics".)
Second, I am in no way claiming that having a book with a stupid title CONTENT-wise (or even being someone who made a stupid CHOICE of a book title) is by itself evidence that the person in question would not be a good president (or is not a respectable individual, etc.).
Nader's 2008 presidential bid
My sense is that, although Nader quite likes Obama, the reason he nonetheless chose to run in 2008 is because Obama's political rhetoric is lacking the details that Nader would like. (I get this sense from a Nader interview I saw on YouTube. I'm pretty sure it was an interview on the David Letterman show, but not fully sure. If anyone cares to know the exact interview for sure, let me know by adding a comment to this entry, and I'll track it down.) Now, on the whole I'm actually a big Nader fan (in fact, I voted for Nader in 2000, with John Hagelin being my close second choice), but I think this is ridiculous.
The ordinary US citizen is not remotely competent in the various intricacies relevant to, e.g., the health care issue WHEN IT COMES TO DETAILED POLICY. The ordinary US citizen knows little about the various costs of ALL the various kinds of health care, which sectors of the population tend to use which kinds of health care, what kinds of preventative healthcare can plausibly reduce the need for other kinds of palliative health care later, the proportion of health care costs that are ultimately due to administration, liability coverage, and the like rather than ultimately due to the actual provision of health care services and health care products (broadly construed, thus including pharmaceuticals, hospital gowns, MRI machines, etc.), what are the current legal rules governing HMOs, let alone what an HMO actually is. And these are just some of the very many things one has to have deep knowledge of in order to reasonably have a view on what the best HIGHLY DETAILED governmental healthcare policy would be. (I myself have deep knowledge of none of these things, and so make no pretense of knowing what the best highly detailed governmental health care policy would be.)
Apparently Nader thinks that US citizens should choose their political leaders by attempting to think about things about which they aren't even remotely competent. I myself think that's ridiculous.
In contrast, I think that US citizens should choose their political leaders on the basis of something that they can more plausibly be said to reasonably have some opinions on, namely, high-level goals. For example, here is a statement of a possible high-level goal: "the US should have a national health care system which provides basic health care to every US citizen, no matter their wealth, whether or not they are responsible (and so at fault) for failing to procure independent healthcare, etc."
So, in fact, I applaud Obama in avoiding such details and sticking to statements of his chosen high-level goals in his campaign and political rhetoric. (Though, note, this does not involve me in saying that this is WHY he has chosen to campaign in this way. Most likely this choice involves, at least IN PART, attention to sheer strategical factors. Not that I think this is a bad thing. Hopefully more on this sometime before Election Day either in "issues" or "commentaries".)
ADDED 9/16/08:
I need to add one point to the previous. For the reasons explained, I don't think the model where US citizens vote for their political leaders based upon the detailed policies they (the candidates) endorse is a good model. However, in voting for their political leaders, US citizens should at least aim for ones who have demonstrated an ability to understand and evaluate detailed policies - since, after all, as elected officials (if they win), they will have to choose among detailed policies. And, of course, this is done by taking some time, in speeches and the like, to talk about detailed policy, explain why they prefer the one that they do, etc.
ADDED 9/17/08:
So I just watched Jon Stewart's discussion of the "Generic Off" on the 9/16/08 episode of The Daily Show. Now, going by the video clips he showed (after all, it is in principle possible that the clips he showed were extracted from "less generic" context), then what the Big Four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) had to say about very recent financial troubles, was, even by my own tastes, way under-detailed. Basically, all any of them said was "we need to fix the financial markets".
But I do NOT take issue with such lack of detail on the grounds that they failed to endorse fully detailed financial policies.
For one example, my complaint is NOT that any of them said something like: "As president/VP, I will do what I can to institute a lending policy where what a lender is allowed to lend (the amount and at what interest rate or interest rate plan) in any given case is such-and-such complex function of six factors: three general economic indicators (inflation, average performance of the NASDAQ over the last year and a half, and the value of dollars in comparison to pounds, euros, yen and rubles), and three other factors (the proportion of money the lender has already lent overall to their actual monetary holdings, the nature of the other loans the lender has already made, and the lender's own five-year history in getting back money loaned) - all of this additional, of course, to standard individual criteria (such as income and credit history)".
For another example, my complaint is also NOT that none of them said anything like: "As president/VP I will do what I can to institute a lender bailout policy where the proportion (if any) of debt (suffered by a lender facing bankruptcy) that will be paid off by the federal government is such-and-such complicated function of four general economic factors (the three from above PLUS average unemployment over the last three years), together with four other factors (the federal government's own budget and treasury deficits, the financial health of the top seven lenders aside from the one in question, the degree to which US citizens on the whole are putting income into savings rather than consumption, and the demand on the part of US citizens for loans [with demand for home mortgages in particular receiving such-and-such extra weight])".
The ordinary US citizen is not even remotely close to being competent to evaluate such detail policies. (I myself am so ignorant that this schematic characterization was just my best guess at some of the things that might be relevant to such fully detailed lending policies.)
Instead, what bugs me is that none of the Big Four even said ANYTHING about anything financial, e.g., lending policy.
First, as a result, viewers/listeners are given absolutely no sense of whether the candidate knows anything about financial markets, and so could be someone who can competently make decisions as to fully detailed financial policies on behalf of the US citizenry. (This connects with my first addition above from 9/16/08.)
Second, also as a result, viewers/listeners don't learn anything about the candidate's high-level goals, such as to what vague-and-general degree he/she is willing to have financial markets, institutions and the like regulated by the federal government, and to what vague-and-general degree he/she thinks it is appropriate for the federal government to spend taxpayer money bailing out failing large corporations (financial or otherwise). (This connects with what I originally said above, about high-level goals.)
So don't make the mistake of thinking that, given what I've said, I can't consistently join Jon Stewart in finding what the Big Four had to say about very recent financial woes as pathetically under-detailed.
The ordinary US citizen is not remotely competent in the various intricacies relevant to, e.g., the health care issue WHEN IT COMES TO DETAILED POLICY. The ordinary US citizen knows little about the various costs of ALL the various kinds of health care, which sectors of the population tend to use which kinds of health care, what kinds of preventative healthcare can plausibly reduce the need for other kinds of palliative health care later, the proportion of health care costs that are ultimately due to administration, liability coverage, and the like rather than ultimately due to the actual provision of health care services and health care products (broadly construed, thus including pharmaceuticals, hospital gowns, MRI machines, etc.), what are the current legal rules governing HMOs, let alone what an HMO actually is. And these are just some of the very many things one has to have deep knowledge of in order to reasonably have a view on what the best HIGHLY DETAILED governmental healthcare policy would be. (I myself have deep knowledge of none of these things, and so make no pretense of knowing what the best highly detailed governmental health care policy would be.)
Apparently Nader thinks that US citizens should choose their political leaders by attempting to think about things about which they aren't even remotely competent. I myself think that's ridiculous.
In contrast, I think that US citizens should choose their political leaders on the basis of something that they can more plausibly be said to reasonably have some opinions on, namely, high-level goals. For example, here is a statement of a possible high-level goal: "the US should have a national health care system which provides basic health care to every US citizen, no matter their wealth, whether or not they are responsible (and so at fault) for failing to procure independent healthcare, etc."
So, in fact, I applaud Obama in avoiding such details and sticking to statements of his chosen high-level goals in his campaign and political rhetoric. (Though, note, this does not involve me in saying that this is WHY he has chosen to campaign in this way. Most likely this choice involves, at least IN PART, attention to sheer strategical factors. Not that I think this is a bad thing. Hopefully more on this sometime before Election Day either in "issues" or "commentaries".)
ADDED 9/16/08:
I need to add one point to the previous. For the reasons explained, I don't think the model where US citizens vote for their political leaders based upon the detailed policies they (the candidates) endorse is a good model. However, in voting for their political leaders, US citizens should at least aim for ones who have demonstrated an ability to understand and evaluate detailed policies - since, after all, as elected officials (if they win), they will have to choose among detailed policies. And, of course, this is done by taking some time, in speeches and the like, to talk about detailed policy, explain why they prefer the one that they do, etc.
ADDED 9/17/08:
So I just watched Jon Stewart's discussion of the "Generic Off" on the 9/16/08 episode of The Daily Show. Now, going by the video clips he showed (after all, it is in principle possible that the clips he showed were extracted from "less generic" context), then what the Big Four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) had to say about very recent financial troubles, was, even by my own tastes, way under-detailed. Basically, all any of them said was "we need to fix the financial markets".
But I do NOT take issue with such lack of detail on the grounds that they failed to endorse fully detailed financial policies.
For one example, my complaint is NOT that any of them said something like: "As president/VP, I will do what I can to institute a lending policy where what a lender is allowed to lend (the amount and at what interest rate or interest rate plan) in any given case is such-and-such complex function of six factors: three general economic indicators (inflation, average performance of the NASDAQ over the last year and a half, and the value of dollars in comparison to pounds, euros, yen and rubles), and three other factors (the proportion of money the lender has already lent overall to their actual monetary holdings, the nature of the other loans the lender has already made, and the lender's own five-year history in getting back money loaned) - all of this additional, of course, to standard individual criteria (such as income and credit history)".
For another example, my complaint is also NOT that none of them said anything like: "As president/VP I will do what I can to institute a lender bailout policy where the proportion (if any) of debt (suffered by a lender facing bankruptcy) that will be paid off by the federal government is such-and-such complicated function of four general economic factors (the three from above PLUS average unemployment over the last three years), together with four other factors (the federal government's own budget and treasury deficits, the financial health of the top seven lenders aside from the one in question, the degree to which US citizens on the whole are putting income into savings rather than consumption, and the demand on the part of US citizens for loans [with demand for home mortgages in particular receiving such-and-such extra weight])".
The ordinary US citizen is not even remotely close to being competent to evaluate such detail policies. (I myself am so ignorant that this schematic characterization was just my best guess at some of the things that might be relevant to such fully detailed lending policies.)
Instead, what bugs me is that none of the Big Four even said ANYTHING about anything financial, e.g., lending policy.
First, as a result, viewers/listeners are given absolutely no sense of whether the candidate knows anything about financial markets, and so could be someone who can competently make decisions as to fully detailed financial policies on behalf of the US citizenry. (This connects with my first addition above from 9/16/08.)
Second, also as a result, viewers/listeners don't learn anything about the candidate's high-level goals, such as to what vague-and-general degree he/she is willing to have financial markets, institutions and the like regulated by the federal government, and to what vague-and-general degree he/she thinks it is appropriate for the federal government to spend taxpayer money bailing out failing large corporations (financial or otherwise). (This connects with what I originally said above, about high-level goals.)
So don't make the mistake of thinking that, given what I've said, I can't consistently join Jon Stewart in finding what the Big Four had to say about very recent financial woes as pathetically under-detailed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
