This has been a blog fundamentally about pragmatism. From politics to the environment, from the Middle East to the Internet, from faith to friendship, controversial and significant issues of today have been explored from the lens of "compromise". Starting from the famed Zeno's paradox where movement is impossible, this blog sought to debunk that paradox -- and also the supposed benefits of absolutism. Indeed, every post has been grounded on the notion that movement -- physical, political, etc. -- is possible, but only if compromise is the vehicle.
Interestingly, writing regularly on Zeno's Fallacy forced me to see issues from different perspectives, required as I was to describe a compromise position. I wrote often about issues where I either had an uncompromising position or did not know much at all. In both cases, reading and researching for the blog helped me understand the issues at hand far better.
More than a mere understanding of facts, however, subsequently writing a post about the merits of compromise narrowed my research to those writing about middle-ground solutions. Such a filter helped me cut through the cacophony and soundbites that surround debate over many of these issues. It focused my thinking and enabled me to articulate both (or all) of the positions on the issue effectively.
Regardless of whether in blog format or not, my future ability to effectively engage in discussions of real world issues has been greatly aided by this opportunity to "race to the middle". I know that in the future I will try even harder to see a greater ideological spectrum before coming to conclusions that (I hope) will be pragmatic and not absolutist. Of course, it is important to be careful to not be overly compromising whilst compromising -- that is, not to give away too much while giving away just enough. Between Chamberlain and Kant, however, there is quite a bit of ground, and that's the sweet spot lies for me.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
A Progress Bar at 50%
Recently, the United States government announced that it would give up the last formal elements of its control over the internet. Currently, domain names (i.e. google.com or yahoo.com) are assigned to specific owners. In other words, companies or individuals can buy web addresses. Facebook owns facebook.com, for example. The apportionment of domain names is managed by an agreement between the US Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is nominally an independent non-profit, but until now has been constrained by contractual agreements with the Commerce Department. The new policy by the Obama Administration would opt to not renew these contracts and allow ICANN to be fully independent.
Supporters of this policy argue that it is critical to enable a truly global internet, one not controlled by any specific government. They believe that in a post-Snowden world, nations will become inherently suspicious of any US-controlled communications system. Iran, North Korea, and Turkey have all discussed setting up intranets that do not communicate with the outside world. China already imposes the so-called "Great Firewall" that blocks politically sensitive content from the West.
By contrast, opponents of the Administration's plan believe that this surrenders control over one of the twenty-first century's most important technologies to an obscure, poorly understood agency. Some argue that ICANN, headquartered in southern California, is overly influenced by Silicon Valley technology companies to the detriment of internet users. Dozens of Congresspeople wrote to the President to ask that he change his stance, and the Department of Commerce appears to be trying to walk back their announcement.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, this debate highlights the highly contentious issue of an open vs. closed world wide web. Perhaps even more broadly, it is about the role of government in regulating what is currently an open ecosystem. National security and personal freedom seem to often be at odds, but this example pits national security and technological freedom. The issue even seems to ask whether unilateral governance is better than multilateral governance. In short, the seemingly-obscure issue of domain names has echoes of many of the most controversial issues of our time. The ability to compromise on these will be critical, as the Obama Administration is discovering. Their latest plan is to slowly transition to a system of global internet governance (they've nicknamed it "e-governance") while using the existing framework to help smooth the transition. This seems like a good middle ground, but only time will tell.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Green Growth
On the heels of the new IPCC Working Group II report on climate change that warns of widespread, devastating global effects, there is a renewed debate over how to best reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Those on the political right argue that any attempt to cut emissions will come at the expense of the economy. In a time of slow growth, they say, the government should do nothing to impede the fragile recovery. This was the main political rationale for the defeat of the 2009 Obama cap-and-trade scheme. Of course, Democrats counter that global warming is an issue too pressing to be left to future generations.
This debate over how to balance the dual imperatives for growth and emissions control is analogous to the debate over the logging industry vs. rainforest stability, (potentially economically damaging) regulations vs. polluted ecosystems, and oil independence vs. preserving wildlife refuges (for instance, the ANWR). In my English class, we recently discussed the conflicts and the importance of framing them to not be seen as mutually exclusive.
Beyond such framing, however, aligning economics and environmentalism is the most productive compromise solution. Cap-and-trade, though much maligned by the right, does seek to do just this. It provides economic incentives for companies and factories to be environmentally sustainable. In other words, environmentalism helps their bottom line. The problem, of course, is that while under a cap-and-trade regime corporations have profit incentives to cut emissions, it is still far more costly compared to a pre-cap-and-trade system. As a result, the political incentives to cut emissions don't exist.
Perhaps one answer is to pair any cap-and-trade or emission regulations bill with concessions to the GOP. President Obama might consider attaching Keystone XL approval or increased drilling on federal lands, both priorities of the GOP, to help placate right-wing opposition.
However, even more fundamentally than band-aid political fixes, our society needs to develop technology that makes efficiency and pollution reduction actually profitable without the government manipulating the market (as in cap-and-trade). CO2 scrubbers that improve the output of powerplants, car engines that burn less fuel by increasing MPG, and more are all in the future. It is up to government, academia, and business to develop these solutions that can ensure this country -- and our world -- can both grow a great economy and preserve a great environment.
Beyond such framing, however, aligning economics and environmentalism is the most productive compromise solution. Cap-and-trade, though much maligned by the right, does seek to do just this. It provides economic incentives for companies and factories to be environmentally sustainable. In other words, environmentalism helps their bottom line. The problem, of course, is that while under a cap-and-trade regime corporations have profit incentives to cut emissions, it is still far more costly compared to a pre-cap-and-trade system. As a result, the political incentives to cut emissions don't exist.
Perhaps one answer is to pair any cap-and-trade or emission regulations bill with concessions to the GOP. President Obama might consider attaching Keystone XL approval or increased drilling on federal lands, both priorities of the GOP, to help placate right-wing opposition.
However, even more fundamentally than band-aid political fixes, our society needs to develop technology that makes efficiency and pollution reduction actually profitable without the government manipulating the market (as in cap-and-trade). CO2 scrubbers that improve the output of powerplants, car engines that burn less fuel by increasing MPG, and more are all in the future. It is up to government, academia, and business to develop these solutions that can ensure this country -- and our world -- can both grow a great economy and preserve a great environment.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Evolutionary Compromise
I was reminded recently in biology class of a post I wrote earlier in year entitled "Fitting Facts with Faith." In it, I described how the notions of creationism and evolution by natural selection are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are potentially synergistic. Though this dichotomy was briefly discussed in my science class, far more interesting to me was another example of compromise: evolution itself.
Natural selection is often understood to be a magical process by which the weak are all weeded out overnight. Instead, evolution has its drawbacks that prevent the creation of a "perfect species." As both my biology book and some recent research from the University of Michigan demonstrate, the evolutionary process is inherently one of compromise. Creatures must be adapt to be able to live -- and survive -- in a variety of different environments, perform a variety of different tasks, and handle a variety of different situations. The perfect creature would not be agile enough to outlast a change in the weather or available prey.
The very thesis of evolution is that out of a primordial stew of mutations and genetic code formed an increasingly developed series of life forms. This very fundamentally involved compromise -- between different DNA sequences with genetic information (called "genotypes") and different potential expressions of that information ("phenotypes"). Penguins, for instance, while good swimmers, have more difficultly moving on land. Alternatively, animals that could blend in with a forest scene would look remarkably out of place upon the outset of a snowy winter.
In some respects, it is comforting that no "perfect" creature can ever be created through natural selection. On the other hand, it is sobering to remember that humans were created by attempting to minimize the impact of hundreds upon hundreds of little flaws that date back to the first unicellular organism. Evolutionary compromise has been the only way that species survive, and the results are the rich web of life we call...(N/n)ature. But more on that later.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Compromise and Shakespeare
In two famous Shakespeare tragedies, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, the Bard of Avon uses characters too blind to their own moral absolutism to demonstrate the importance of compromise. Indeed, because they are tragedies, the characters must necessarily be flawed in a fashion that causes them to make poor decisions. The results of those mistakes then form the basis for the tragedies.
Hamlet's plot is driven by a series of desires for revenge: King Hamlet's ghost telling Prince Hamlet to avenge his death as well as Laertes seeking to restore his honor after Polonius and Ophelia pass away. Both are unrelenting. When Hamlet offers his apologies to Laertes in Act V, Scene II, the latter refuses to take them, citing his own personal honor. More significantly, much of Scenes IV and V could have been avoided had Hamlet killed Claudius during "prayer." His choice not to do so on moral grounds prolonged the story and resulted in the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, and Polonius. Alternatively, Hamlet might have considered acting mad in certain contexts, but preserving some relationships that were important to him (i.e. Ophelia). Most of the plot events can be attributed to the uncompromising nature of these characters.
In Romeo and Juliet, the two lovers are too lovestruck to contemplate anything apart from a life together. The play ends with their unnecessary suicides as a way to illustrate the silliness of such unrelenting love. Surely Romeo and Juliet should love each other desperately, but it is not rational to believe that suicide is a helpful solution to their grief. Their inability to bear that pain -- in other words, to temporarily compromise their love for their own sake -- is what makes the play a tragedy. Not only do they die, but they die unnecessary deaths at the hands of absolutism.
All these if-onlys solely serve to heighten the sadness of Shakespeare's tragedies. We, as the readers wishing deeply for a happy ending, want the protagonists to take off their blinders and abandon their tunnel vision, but they cannot. This is human nature; I am far from convinced I could be any different. It is part of Shakespeare's critique of human nature as too stubborn, too arrogant, too foolish. These opportunities, missed because of obstinacy alone, serve to deepen the plot and reinforce the emotional poignancy of the text.
Hamlet's plot is driven by a series of desires for revenge: King Hamlet's ghost telling Prince Hamlet to avenge his death as well as Laertes seeking to restore his honor after Polonius and Ophelia pass away. Both are unrelenting. When Hamlet offers his apologies to Laertes in Act V, Scene II, the latter refuses to take them, citing his own personal honor. More significantly, much of Scenes IV and V could have been avoided had Hamlet killed Claudius during "prayer." His choice not to do so on moral grounds prolonged the story and resulted in the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, and Polonius. Alternatively, Hamlet might have considered acting mad in certain contexts, but preserving some relationships that were important to him (i.e. Ophelia). Most of the plot events can be attributed to the uncompromising nature of these characters.
In Romeo and Juliet, the two lovers are too lovestruck to contemplate anything apart from a life together. The play ends with their unnecessary suicides as a way to illustrate the silliness of such unrelenting love. Surely Romeo and Juliet should love each other desperately, but it is not rational to believe that suicide is a helpful solution to their grief. Their inability to bear that pain -- in other words, to temporarily compromise their love for their own sake -- is what makes the play a tragedy. Not only do they die, but they die unnecessary deaths at the hands of absolutism.
All these if-onlys solely serve to heighten the sadness of Shakespeare's tragedies. We, as the readers wishing deeply for a happy ending, want the protagonists to take off their blinders and abandon their tunnel vision, but they cannot. This is human nature; I am far from convinced I could be any different. It is part of Shakespeare's critique of human nature as too stubborn, too arrogant, too foolish. These opportunities, missed because of obstinacy alone, serve to deepen the plot and reinforce the emotional poignancy of the text.
Compromising Compromise
This blog is devoted to the benefits of compromise: societal, political, and personal, to name a few. I'd like to spend this post discussing what happens when compromise goes to far: when it becomes compromising.
Compromise, as a noun, means to give up something in exchange for something else. Compromise, as a verb, means to endanger something important. In the popular discourse, many conflate the two. We hear politicians warn against political compromise that supposedly will endanger our national security, for example. When Obama shook hands with Cuban dictator Rául Castro or negotiated with Iran, it was only a matter of minutes before the first editorial was published online envisioning Obama holding a white flag in one hand and the Munich Agreement in the other.
These, however, are good types of compromise: compromises that achieves your goals without giving away -- compromising -- anything critical. The Iran deal constitutes an easing of sanctions (doesn't endanger US national security) in return for Iran halting uranium enrichment (potentially good for US national security). The handshake with Castro was simply harmless. Many pundits are rather poor at ferreting out good compromise from bad.
Another person bad at that: Neville Chamberlain. He went too far in the other direction, thinking that a compromising treaty constituted compromise. In reality, it was capitulation. He handed over the Sudentenland (bad for British interests and really bad for Czech interests), gave Hitler a free-rein over Central Europe (horrifically bad for British interests), and got, in return, a sheet of paper (simply meaningless). Compromise entails real, verifiable concessions by both sides, not unilateral disarmament.
Nixon's trip to China was compromise, because it gave the PRC something it wanted (relations with the US) and the US something it wanted as well (an ally against the Soviet threat). Had Nixon gone to China, hat in hand, and offered a complete unilateral normalization of relations without any quid pro quo, that would certainly be an unproductive form of compromise.
As important as it is to remember that every display of bipartisanship does not equate to 1939 France, it is equally important to understand how much to give up. Compromising (as a verb) one's ethical or moral standards, for example, is likely a poor route to take. A one way "compromise" is gift-giving, not compromise. Finding the right balance is critical.
Compromise, as a noun, means to give up something in exchange for something else. Compromise, as a verb, means to endanger something important. In the popular discourse, many conflate the two. We hear politicians warn against political compromise that supposedly will endanger our national security, for example. When Obama shook hands with Cuban dictator Rául Castro or negotiated with Iran, it was only a matter of minutes before the first editorial was published online envisioning Obama holding a white flag in one hand and the Munich Agreement in the other.
These, however, are good types of compromise: compromises that achieves your goals without giving away -- compromising -- anything critical. The Iran deal constitutes an easing of sanctions (doesn't endanger US national security) in return for Iran halting uranium enrichment (potentially good for US national security). The handshake with Castro was simply harmless. Many pundits are rather poor at ferreting out good compromise from bad.
Another person bad at that: Neville Chamberlain. He went too far in the other direction, thinking that a compromising treaty constituted compromise. In reality, it was capitulation. He handed over the Sudentenland (bad for British interests and really bad for Czech interests), gave Hitler a free-rein over Central Europe (horrifically bad for British interests), and got, in return, a sheet of paper (simply meaningless). Compromise entails real, verifiable concessions by both sides, not unilateral disarmament.
Nixon's trip to China was compromise, because it gave the PRC something it wanted (relations with the US) and the US something it wanted as well (an ally against the Soviet threat). Had Nixon gone to China, hat in hand, and offered a complete unilateral normalization of relations without any quid pro quo, that would certainly be an unproductive form of compromise.
As important as it is to remember that every display of bipartisanship does not equate to 1939 France, it is equally important to understand how much to give up. Compromising (as a verb) one's ethical or moral standards, for example, is likely a poor route to take. A one way "compromise" is gift-giving, not compromise. Finding the right balance is critical.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Compromise Ad (Nauseam)
One of the top-rated commercials from last weekend's Super Bowl was the Audi Doberhuahua ad. The spot begins with a couple that is having trouble selecting a dog from the selection at their neighborhood pet store. A salesperson suggested they breed two dogs together, thus creating the Doberhuahua. The commercial then goes on to show the abnormally large-headed-and-small-bodied dog prancing at dog shows, running down the street chasing the local children, and barking at passerby while sitting in its owner's purse. The ad ends with the on-screen line, "Compromise scares us too."
The reactions were immediate: Audi is showing us the "dangers of compromise." It was echoed all around the blogosphere.
What everyone takes for granted is that compromise is inherently bad. Audi, cowed as they are into purity by the menacing bark of compromise, surely themselves must compromise. They must compromise on safety, or else their new A3 would look like a tank. They must compromise on speed, or else the engine would comprise 95% of the car. They must compromise on aesthetics, or else the car would be made from fine designer leather inlaid with diamonds. They must compromise on profit, or else the car would cost millions. And so on and so forth.
Compromise is essential to good design. As yours truly wrote a couple months ago, complete inclusion without constraints only guarantees poor design. If everything is attempted, nothing is done well. While my previous post was about computer makers, the same is true with auto companies. The former might create an operating system so feature-packed that it is unwieldy, while the latter might create a car that is too expensive, too heavy, or too powerful.
"Compromise scares us too" makes a good ad line or Twitter hashtag, but fails as a design philosophy. Lets hope that Audi is less scared of their Doberhuahua than they claim.
I'll leave you with this tweet:
The reactions were immediate: Audi is showing us the "dangers of compromise." It was echoed all around the blogosphere.
What everyone takes for granted is that compromise is inherently bad. Audi, cowed as they are into purity by the menacing bark of compromise, surely themselves must compromise. They must compromise on safety, or else their new A3 would look like a tank. They must compromise on speed, or else the engine would comprise 95% of the car. They must compromise on aesthetics, or else the car would be made from fine designer leather inlaid with diamonds. They must compromise on profit, or else the car would cost millions. And so on and so forth.
Compromise is essential to good design. As yours truly wrote a couple months ago, complete inclusion without constraints only guarantees poor design. If everything is attempted, nothing is done well. While my previous post was about computer makers, the same is true with auto companies. The former might create an operating system so feature-packed that it is unwieldy, while the latter might create a car that is too expensive, too heavy, or too powerful.
"Compromise scares us too" makes a good ad line or Twitter hashtag, but fails as a design philosophy. Lets hope that Audi is less scared of their Doberhuahua than they claim.
I'll leave you with this tweet:
That dog commercial should've been a US Congress commercial #compromisescaresus
— Logan Johnke (@LoganJohnke) February 3, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)