As I type this the Eurovision Song Contest is playing in the background. It was easy to stop watching - Norway is so far ahead in the voting its hard to imagine anything will change.
A lot of Europeans cringe at the mention of the contest. The music is often so bad, the lyrics so unoriginal, the emotion so fake that's all pretty understandable. But in Australia its treated as high camp - hugely popular in the Gay and Lesbian community and ironic inner city inhabitants who wouldn't be seen dead at this sort of music the rest of the year. If I'd slept more last night I might be at a fundraiser where you could watch it on the big screen.
But whether you love or hate the clothes, music and presenters, its worth spending just a minute to consider the real benefit of the event. It was created in the 1950s, when Europe was desperately searching for a way to prevent another war. The European Union was the most important product of this search, along with the court of human rights and other bodies that managed to pull in even more of the continent's nations. Besides these Eurovision might seem pretty trivial. But it is all a part of the process of building a common European identity. The hope was that the more one saw of another nation's culture, the less likely you were to invade.
Modern technology and the fall of the Wall has given the whole project a renewed lease of life. Western Europe doesn't need it any more, and aside from the Scandinavians they don't much care either. But for Eastern Europe, so recently at war and with unresolved conflicts still to be address, anything that instills fondness for the neighbours has value. The fact that everyone gets to vote these days is important too - when you've just voted for Bosnia to win the contest you probably don't feel so much like bombing them back to the Stone Age. It's even better if they've just given you 12 points - but even 5 or 6 will do.
It's hard to prove that Eurovision works. It's a pretty flimsy basis for continental peace after all. But these things build up. Once Europe was in a continuous state of war. Peace for any nation was a temporary aberration, and for the whole place to be free of war at once was almost unimaginable. Last year, when Russia and Georgia went to war, the first conflict anywhere west of the Urals for 9 years, it was like an event from another era. Which in fact it was.
You may, like me, think that the Norwegian entry was so boring it ranks as three minutes of your life you'll never get back. But spend some time in the cemeteries of Flanders if you need to be reminded there are worse things than boredom.
Showing posts with label counter-intuition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label counter-intuition. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
They Couldn't Get It Right, Even When It Benefited Them
The outbreak of swine flu is frightening. It may peter out (although that will still mean hundreds of deaths. Or it could kill millions.
One reassuring thought is that it seems to be fairly susceptible to Tamiflu and Relenza, the drugs based on the work of Graeme Laver. This will mean a lot of people who would have died otherwise will be saved, and even those who would have lived will have a much less hellish experience.
So the citizens of all those countries that stocked up heavily against the Avian flu threat should be feeling very grateful. That doesn't really include the US. While they probably hold the largest stocks in the world, on a per capita basis they're way behind. The funny thing about his is that apparently Dick Cheney held many shares in Hoffman La Roche, the company marketing Tamiflu. I remember reading (and responding angrily to) emails claiming the stockpiles were a conspiracy to enrich him.
So even when Chaney stood to benefit, the Bush administration couldn't do the right thing and create appropriate defenses against dangerous threats.
BTW, at one point Australia was lagging well behind the rest of the developed world in building a stockpile. Bob Brown became alarmed and asked a lot of questions in the Senate. He was told the situation had changed, and our stockpiles were being rapidly added to, and we would soon have the 2nd or 3rd largest per capita stocks in the world. It's not clear if Bob's pushing contributed to this, but naturally I like to think so.
One reassuring thought is that it seems to be fairly susceptible to Tamiflu and Relenza, the drugs based on the work of Graeme Laver. This will mean a lot of people who would have died otherwise will be saved, and even those who would have lived will have a much less hellish experience.
So the citizens of all those countries that stocked up heavily against the Avian flu threat should be feeling very grateful. That doesn't really include the US. While they probably hold the largest stocks in the world, on a per capita basis they're way behind. The funny thing about his is that apparently Dick Cheney held many shares in Hoffman La Roche, the company marketing Tamiflu. I remember reading (and responding angrily to) emails claiming the stockpiles were a conspiracy to enrich him.
So even when Chaney stood to benefit, the Bush administration couldn't do the right thing and create appropriate defenses against dangerous threats.
BTW, at one point Australia was lagging well behind the rest of the developed world in building a stockpile. Bob Brown became alarmed and asked a lot of questions in the Senate. He was told the situation had changed, and our stockpiles were being rapidly added to, and we would soon have the 2nd or 3rd largest per capita stocks in the world. It's not clear if Bob's pushing contributed to this, but naturally I like to think so.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Confirmation Bias
A friend of mine posted this link on her facebook site. It's an article about opening up monogamous relationships. I'm responding, not the article itself, but to one of the comments, which claims: Having been in and known dozens and dozens of people involved with open relationships, I can think of less than a handful for whom it has worked.
Of course defining which relationships "work" and which don't can be pretty hard, but it struck me that a case could be made that most relationships don't "work" at least if your test is having them last for life.
When I was at university I knew of perhaps three openly non-monogmous relationsips, although there were probably a few others who were keeping it quiet. Naturally this was out of hundreds (possibly thousands) of relationships within my friendship circle over the years.
The other day I opened the newspaper to an interview with someone who was part of one of those non-monogmous relationships, who has now become a moderately famous author. His partner is drifting around during the interview, occasionally intervening. And yes, its the same partner. They've been together more than 20 years, since well before I met them.
The thing is, I can only think of four other relationships from my peer group that have made the distance. So the "failure" rate is actually a lot higher for the conventional relationships than the very small sample of open relationships.
But when monogamous relationships break up outside observers seldom blame monogamy. When open or polyamourous relationships don't last, it's the first thing everyone else grabs for.
It's not a very original observation of course. It's called Confirmation Bias. When we see something that supports our prejudices we file it away as evidence, when it counteracts what we expect we often, although not always, disregard it.
But it would be nice if, on a lefty website, people of explicitly progressive politics were not so clearly applying it to bash others.
Of course defining which relationships "work" and which don't can be pretty hard, but it struck me that a case could be made that most relationships don't "work" at least if your test is having them last for life.
When I was at university I knew of perhaps three openly non-monogmous relationsips, although there were probably a few others who were keeping it quiet. Naturally this was out of hundreds (possibly thousands) of relationships within my friendship circle over the years.
The other day I opened the newspaper to an interview with someone who was part of one of those non-monogmous relationships, who has now become a moderately famous author. His partner is drifting around during the interview, occasionally intervening. And yes, its the same partner. They've been together more than 20 years, since well before I met them.
The thing is, I can only think of four other relationships from my peer group that have made the distance. So the "failure" rate is actually a lot higher for the conventional relationships than the very small sample of open relationships.
But when monogamous relationships break up outside observers seldom blame monogamy. When open or polyamourous relationships don't last, it's the first thing everyone else grabs for.
It's not a very original observation of course. It's called Confirmation Bias. When we see something that supports our prejudices we file it away as evidence, when it counteracts what we expect we often, although not always, disregard it.
But it would be nice if, on a lefty website, people of explicitly progressive politics were not so clearly applying it to bash others.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Year To End All Wars
Mark 2068 in your diaries. It’s the year humanity will achieve its crowning glory – an end to war.
• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.
There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.
But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.
Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.
The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.
But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.
I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.
I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.
Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone
Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua
Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda
I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.
There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.
On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.
If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.
It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.
And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.
[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.
I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.
A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.
[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.
OK, I’m not actually serious with that. The date is based on a calculation so rough it barely deserves the name, but I’m trying to make a serious point. Unlikely as it may seem, we are on target to end perhaps the greatest blight on human happiness in history, and in the life time of some people alive today.
• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.
There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.
But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.
Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.
The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.
But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.
I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.
I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.
Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone
Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua
Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda
I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.
There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.
On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.
If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.
It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.
And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.
[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.
I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.
A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.
[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why Is America So Bad At Sport?
Looking at the Olympics medal table I just can't help wondering "Why is America so bad at sport?" The question is seldom asked, and may seem ridiculous - America dominates world sport, dontcha know? They've dominated the Olympics since the East Germans stopped their cheating regime. Even with homeground advantage and 1.3 billion people China's trailing them in the medal count, although they have more gold.
Until you look closer. This is usually done with number of medals per capita, and that's kindof dry. So lets look at it this way - how would things be going if the EU competed as one team.
At the point of typing it would be US 14 gold, 12 silver, 17 bronze, EU 27 gold, 30 silver, 30 bronze.
Bit of a masacre really.
No fair you cry - The EU is bigger than America. Indeed it is. So lets cut it down to first nine nations to sign up, who happen to have a population very similar to the US. That brings it down to 19 gold, 17 silver, 20 bronze.
And this is just the summer olympics. In winter its not unusual for European nations with less than ten million people to outscore America. On a per capita basis including the winter olympics raises the risk of the ultimate humiliation, Americal being beaten on a per capita basis by Canada.
An alternative way to look at it is: How would America go if each state competed seperately. Well whichever one of Michigan and Maryland Michael Phelps chose to reprsent would be doing fine, but everyone else would be feeling pretty grim. Even California wouldn't stack up too well. It's not just Europe of course - Australia smashes America (and everyone else) on a per capita basis, as does South Korea. The Americans may beat impoverished nations (with a few exceptions like Zimbabwe) but that's about it.
Some argue that the problem is that teh best American athletes get snapped up by the big money in Basketball, Football and Baseball. Besides the obvious question why these sports are so much more of a threat than soccer, the fact is that this is a very gendered view of the world. Women athletes are financially better off in Olympic sports than competing in the amateur competitions in football or baseball. Yet America's women are bring home even less gold than the men (mainly for lack of a Michelle Phelps).
This isn't a bag America post. Australia places far too much reliance on sporting results for its national pride. Much better to lead the world in solar cell design or medial breakthroughs than following a black line up and down a pool. I just think its an interesting question.
When Britian's sporting results tanked in the 80s and 90s some lefties delighted in blaming Thatcher. Supposedly she had sold off the sporting ovals many poorer schools used, and this had made it harder for kids to take up sport. I'd love to be able to pin this one on George Bush, but I somehow doubt I can. Anyone with any ideas?
Until you look closer. This is usually done with number of medals per capita, and that's kindof dry. So lets look at it this way - how would things be going if the EU competed as one team.
At the point of typing it would be US 14 gold, 12 silver, 17 bronze, EU 27 gold, 30 silver, 30 bronze.
Bit of a masacre really.
No fair you cry - The EU is bigger than America. Indeed it is. So lets cut it down to first nine nations to sign up, who happen to have a population very similar to the US. That brings it down to 19 gold, 17 silver, 20 bronze.
And this is just the summer olympics. In winter its not unusual for European nations with less than ten million people to outscore America. On a per capita basis including the winter olympics raises the risk of the ultimate humiliation, Americal being beaten on a per capita basis by Canada.
An alternative way to look at it is: How would America go if each state competed seperately. Well whichever one of Michigan and Maryland Michael Phelps chose to reprsent would be doing fine, but everyone else would be feeling pretty grim. Even California wouldn't stack up too well. It's not just Europe of course - Australia smashes America (and everyone else) on a per capita basis, as does South Korea. The Americans may beat impoverished nations (with a few exceptions like Zimbabwe) but that's about it.
Some argue that the problem is that teh best American athletes get snapped up by the big money in Basketball, Football and Baseball. Besides the obvious question why these sports are so much more of a threat than soccer, the fact is that this is a very gendered view of the world. Women athletes are financially better off in Olympic sports than competing in the amateur competitions in football or baseball. Yet America's women are bring home even less gold than the men (mainly for lack of a Michelle Phelps).
This isn't a bag America post. Australia places far too much reliance on sporting results for its national pride. Much better to lead the world in solar cell design or medial breakthroughs than following a black line up and down a pool. I just think its an interesting question.
When Britian's sporting results tanked in the 80s and 90s some lefties delighted in blaming Thatcher. Supposedly she had sold off the sporting ovals many poorer schools used, and this had made it harder for kids to take up sport. I'd love to be able to pin this one on George Bush, but I somehow doubt I can. Anyone with any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)