The Fourth Horseman

I am a somewhat militant atheist. I say that with my tongue firmly in my cheek.  Whilst I hold very strong views on the harm religion causes, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to believe in. I don’t feel the need to threaten someone with flagellation, jail or death if they disagree with me.

Whilst I make consistent efforts to seek out views which conflict with my own I of course still listen to those whose views are closer to mine. It is for this reason that I’m familiar with Sam Harris (1).

Harris is predominantly a philosopher although he holds a PHD in cognitive neuroscience. He is perhaps most recognised as one of the ‘four horsemen’ of New Atheism. Harris is a fairly prolific author writing primarily about religion, spirituality and ethics.

Over the last few years he has started podcasting. These works contain some truly clever insights about a whole range of topics. I find him particularly reasonable in the face of what is often strong criticism.

The only criticism I could make of his podcasts is that the delivery by Harris can seem a little beige. By Beige what I really mean is that in the future, when someone wants to describe a voice that’s devoid of emotion, instead of using the phrase ‘deadpan’ people might actually use ‘Harris’. 

Having said that Harris justifies his delivery by explaining that he doesn’t like to use emotion in his voice to make his argument. Rather he would prefer the facts to speak for themselves. 

Harris is self-depreciating when speaking about his skills as an interviewer. I’ve said on this blog before that the very best interviewers know that sometimes, just letting someone speak more effectively lampoon’s their argument than asking the ‘gotcha’ questions. Harris’s has made an art form of remaining very calm, whilst his opponents twist themselves around an axle that’s of their own making, as they avoid answering reasonable questions by employing unreasonable logic.

An example of this is one of his recent podcast’s entitled ‘Throw Open the Gates: A conversation with Maryam Namazie’ (2). Harris wasn’t trying to be combative. He made it very clear that he supported much of what Namazie had done and that they shared many views. They disagreed about profiling and open borders policy and the podcast was an effort to discuss their differences.

What followed was later described by Harris as “one of the worst if not the worst podcast ever”. I’m paraphrasing a little there I think. After listening to the podcast I’m inclined to agree. It was just incredibly frustrating. The very last few minutes of the podcast however were enlightening. Namazie, after being asked the same simple question by Harris about four times and failing to answer it, started on an impassioned rant.

She spoke about how ridiculous it was for people to associate radical Islam with Persia or much of North Africa. She spoke about how prior to the revolution in Iran (Persia) there was none of the oppression of women that there is now and that radical Islam was not a part of their culture. The Niqab was not a part of their culture. She spoke about what an absolute shame it was that many of the colourful head dresses that used to be worn by women in Africa were being phased out as radical Islamists enforced the wearing of Niqab and the Burka.  

It was powerful stuff. All of it accurate. The overwhelming majority of people living in these countries are much like us. They just want to go on about their lives as we do. Raise a family, find some joy. But they can’t. Because of a regime which is part theocracy, part totalitarian.

I found one aspect of Namazie’s contribution particularly poignant. She is an advocate of international open borders. She has seen what has happened to her country when just a few people, with a harmful belief system, gain control of a country. Yet she cannot seem to understand why people in ‘the west’ are so afraid of an open borders policy.

An open borders policy which all but guarantees that some people, who hold the same radical and harmful beliefs as the people who have harmed her country, will come to ours. When they are here, they will try to instil their harmful beliefs here. They will try to harm our countries. Is it any wonder so many people in the west are so against an open borders policy?

After hearing her speak I can’t imagine a better example to use when debunking the utter silliness that is an open borders policy. It’s truly a triumph of delusion that Namazie cannot see it. She riles against what she believes is the collective blame of refugee’s whilst expecting the rest of the world to accept collective responsibility for it. It’s obviously incongruent. Truly a bizarre stance from someone who is reasonable and sensible about so many other issues.

Harris for his part made some very reasonable comments in the podcast which followed. He accepted some responsibility for what he admitted was a frustrating discussion. He stated that his interviewing technique could improve. He urged people to avoid ‘torching’ Namazie. He didn’t have to do any of that and it reflects well on him that he did.  

Harris seems to be genuinely interested in resolving the points of difference between his views and those who criticise him. It’s refreshing to see. Whether you’re a hard core atheist or a the most ardent of believers, investigating Harris’s work is a worthy use of your time.

1. https://www.samharris.org/

2. https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/throw-open-the-gates

Not The Droids You Are Looking For

As we hurtle through the beginning of the digital age it seems everywhere we turn we are confronted with a droid. Not a beeping little trashcan, but not a human being.

Where once you could pick up a phone and talk to someone, now the caller has to wade through multiple choice menu’s with an all too calm voice outlining the callers options. Most of these options often try to direct the caller towards some kind of online portal. Occasionally the caller is fortunate enough to reach a customer service representative based in a country less fortunate than the callers.

Reader’s might be tempted to label me a grumpy old luddite haranguing whatever passing technologists pass my way. That’s not the case. I’m a very strong supporter of using technology to automate human performed processes. It’s a good thing. The benefits to humanity as a whole are enormous.

On the whole though most people simply do not understand what is happening and what it means for us all. People do not realise the opportunities which are being created. People do not realise just how big of a challenge the digital age presents to us all on so many levels.

Of particular concern is the transition from humans doing the work to some type of automated system doing the work will be rapid. Far more rapid than people realise. A paper developed by the Oxford Martin School (1) shows just how much faster new technologies are diffusing. 

The paper states that it took the telephone seventy-five years to reach fifty million users after its invention. The radio took thirty-eight years to reach fifty million users. Television took thirteen years. The internet four. Facebook three. Angry birds took just thirty-five days to reach fifty million people.

The spread of new technology is disrupting most types of businesses. The existing economic environment is one where interest rates are low yet stakeholders have an expectation of high returns on investment. Businesses must adapt to reduce costs. Automation is seen as a key method to achieve this.

Whilst automation is a good outcome for the business and business stakeholders what happens to the white collar workers whose jobs are being replaced? If those workers aren’t receiving an income they will spend less. What does that do to underlying consumer demand?  How will the global economy continue to grow if underlying consumer demand is stagnant?

Perhaps you think this won’t affect you and perhaps you’re right. If you are already in the information communication and technology field, then your job is relatively safe. If you’re a creative type of person then your job is also likely safe.

If your job is based around rule based activities and routine tasks, it’s likely your job will be automated. This is because if a task can be assigned rules based around each activity the task can be replicated in code. A piece of software can do the job you do and they can do it for 24 hours. A human cannot compete with that.

When faced with this situation the immediate response from many people is to freak right out. This is natural. Change presents difficulties that many people find confronting. The idea of not only losing your job, but not being able to find another one because there are no jobs in the field you are qualified in, is understandably terrifying.

The terror subsides somewhat when you consider that whilst many jobs will almost certainly be no longer required they are the jobs that people rarely enjoy doing. There are no happy call centre workers. As a society should we not be thankful that we can do less of the jobs nobody wants?

Also consider that the actual amount of hours worked has steadily decreased over the past hundred to hundred and fifty years. Some countries such as Sweden are committed to standardizing a six hour working day (2). This may cushion job losses somewhat although it is not guaranteed to protect jobs.

A 2007 report developed by the International Labour Office notes “While there is no question that working hours were reduced considerably during the twentieth century, the scale of the working-hour reductions and their cross-country variations have yet to be understood. (3)

So what will people do? Perhaps everyone will simply work less and that seems the most reasonable course given the information we have available. Perhaps it will result in the creation of a newer, larger underclass. Let’s hope that’s not the case. 

There’s cause for cautious optimism thanks to technology. The Internet is potentially the great enabler. Programming languages are the toolset of the digital age. If you can think it, and are willing to learn a programming language, then you can write a program which can do it. With the internet that idea can spread far and wide.

This blog, and in many respects the whole website, is an example of this. Thirty years ago if I wanted to ramble on I’d have to complete a university degree, gain employment at a publication and spend twenty years working my way up before being given the opportunity to write a cherished ‘opinion’ piece.

Now. I simply write. If people like my efforts, they come back. I am my own gatekeeper. It’s a satisfying feeling. It’s something I’d encourage everyone to do. We are all passionate about something. That passion is worth something. People will absolutely pay for it and that’s cause for more cautious optimism.

Consider a website that reaches a million people a month. If just one out of every hundred people who visit donates one dollar each, that website will generate ten thousand dollars a month. The website doesn’t have to advertise harmful products which guilt people in purchasing them. It doesn’t have to resort to gimmicks. It has to be doing something that people enjoy and find worthwhile.

Also note that none of that ten thousand dollars is going to shareholders who haven’t actually produced anything. It’s not going to an executive who is paid twenty times more than an entry level employee. It’s going directly to the person who put in the hard work to deliver a meaningful product.

Of course we still face enormous risks. The situation I described above represents a significant departure from existing economic models. It seems fanciful to suggest we will transition without some hardship.

Consider Uber. The Uber business model is vastly superior to the ‘taxi’ business model it is fast replacing. It seems doubtful that there will be any regular taxi’s in a decade’s time. Now consider a man in his fifties, who bought taxi plates a few years ago as an investment and a path to gradual retirement. That guys hurting. His families hurting.

I suspect the possibility of collaborative agreements between people offering online services will present some problems to existing taxation structures. How do you tax a reciprocal agreement? Should you tax it? Should all people pay the same amount to support ICT and power infrastructure or should people pay for what they use?

What happens if the tremendous benefits bestowed by the internet lead to the rise of new gatekeepers? The owners of the infrastructure on which the internet relies, and the energy companies who provide the juice to run it, already have great power. What’s balancing that?

They are all tough questions. The answers obscured but lurking somewhere in the future. Whatever we create in the future may not be the droids we were looking for. I hope it is the future we are looking for.

1. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Citi_GPS_Technology_Work.pdf

2. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34677949

3. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_104895.pdf

Avon Valley Beef

I am a carnivore. Actually I may even be a hyper-carnivore although perhaps I’m more of a meso-carnivore.  Semantics aside I really do love a piece of dead animal. I must admit though I wonder if my love of dead animals might be looked upon by my descendants as immoral.

It's very difficult to sensibly argue against the ethical concerns raised by those who do not eat meat. It’s also difficult to argue against the health benefits of eating meat. I eat meat, because I place my own health above the welfare of an animal. I’m comfortable that in doing so I’m partially responsible for inflicting considerable suffering on a largely helpless beast.

Hopefully the boffin's can perfect the creation of artificial meat in the near future. This allowing us all to enjoy the health benefits provided by meat whilst not torturing a sentient animal. We have managed to produce artificial meat and the taste apparently was acceptable (1). The current technology required however is not cost effective. It seems only a matter of time before this changes.  

I’m not really supportive of buying produce from the big food chains. Sure I accept it’s convenient, but the quality of the product is usually inferior to local produce. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the purchase of meat from your big retailers. Ever wondered why it all looks so fresh, so red? Wonder no longer! (2).   

After moving into our home a few years ago it took us quite some time to find a decent butcher. It was with utter relief that we found Avon Valley Beef. So what do I love about Avon Valley Beef? Oh let me count the ways.

To begin with all of their products are locally sourced. That means fresh stuff which is grown and slaughtered in way which is less harmful to the animal than more intensive meat producers. I’ve never seen chicken on display which is not free range.  

The range of their products is also extensive. They offer a variety of beef cuts right up from prime fillet down to chuck, oyster blade and everything in between. They also offer Pork, Lamb and chicken. Once again they offer a good range of cuts. If you can think of it, they offer it. When I wanted to have a crack at making my own bacon, they got the cut I needed in and away I went. You won’t get that from the big retailers.

Their service is absolutely top notch. When I walk in to the shop with the family they always say hi. The staff are knowledgeable and are always wonderful with my two-year-old son. You won’t get that from the big retailers.

Lastly the cost of their produce really is very reasonable. Sure there are some cut’s that are more expensive than others, but when compared with the big retailers many of their cuts are priced similarly. Avon Valley Beef is less expensive than specialty butchers in my experience.   

Until we can perfect artificial meat which is cost affordable I’m satisfied with consuming my meat in a way which causes the least amount of suffering to the animal whist remaining practical. Shopping at Avon Valley Beef achieves this.  

1.  http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23576143
2. http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-supermarket-meat-is-always-unnaturally-red/

Any Port in a Storm

After she was accidentally burnt whilst in a detention centre a Nepalese baby named Asha was flown to Brisbane in order to ensure she received the appropriate medical treatment. After Asha had recovered several of the doctors at Lady Cliento Hospital refused to discharge her. The doctor’s rationale was that to release the child would have placed her into an abusive situation thus breaching their ethical obligations to their patient.

The doctor’s stance was supported by the Australian Medical Associations President Brian Owler. In a speech delivered on Sunday 21 February Mr Owler said “There are times, in any nation, where the medical profession must act in the interests not only of our patients as individuals, or for patients in a health system, but it must act in the national interest.” (1) 

Mr Owler continued, stating “Some commentators have seen this as a form of political protest. But as a doctor working in a paediatric hospital, who deals with the consequences of physical abuse, I know that there is no reasonable other option for these doctors and nurses to take. There is an absolute ethical, not to mention moral, obligation to that patient who is in their care. The obligation is to not release a child back into a situation where they have reason to believe that there is a risk of harm, whether that be physical or psychological.”

One can only wonder if the same heady words do not also apply to the many battered wives and abused children doctors and social workers across the country regularly release back into the care of their abusers? Such musings highlight that the doctor’s stance and Owlers comments are quite clearly a political protest,

The refugee debate frustrates me. This is mostly because there are not many easy answers to what are the complex problems surrounding the issue. Also I feel there is something perverse in the idea that a nation largely founded by prisoners is now imprisoning those who are trying to come here.

I am uncomfortable with the business model employed by people smugglers. It results in deaths at sea. To say nothing of the financial, physical and sexual exploitation of those people who use people smugglers.

I’m disappointed that we detain refugees. I’m upset that refugees are sometimes exposed to violence and abuse while they are detained. I find it difficult to dispute however that by detaining these people and preventing them from coming here it does ‘break’ the people smugglers business model. This results in fewer deaths and less misery.    

I’m particularly confused by how some refugee advocates can be so upset by the abuse that occurs when in detention, yet they don’t seem to acknowledge the harm people smugglers cause. Allowing people smugglers to provide a practical way to come to Australia condemns far more people to all manners of abuse than detention does.

For this reason, as uncomfortable as I am with the idea of detaining refuges, I am supportive of the policy. The question then becomes one of how to process them in the most reasonable manner. As is often the case I have an idea that is both novel and impractical. I think Australian citizens should be able to ‘adopt’ a detainee.

It’s really very simple and it relies upon the goodwill of existing Australian residents. The first part of the model requires people to volunteer to act as resettlement liaisons. So what the hell is a resettlement liaison? Sounds a little like an imaginary role in the latest ABC mockumentary.

Kidding aside, by nominating to act in this role existing citizens are pledging to house and act as the support person for a single detainee or for a family of detainees over a period of six months. This role is important because people should have assistance to not just settle into Australia, but to also integrate with our existing culture.

It will also give the government an accurate measure of public willingness to take on detainees or even new refugees. I suspect it will also clarify exactly who are genuine refugee advocates willing to help and who are simply grandstanding. Surely Senator Hansen-Young would be one of those who would be keen to assist in this area given her strong opposition to detaining asylum seekers.  

It’s important to note that these new Australians would have full access to government services while they are living with their liaisons. They would also be subject to the same requirements of an Australian resident. They would need to seek employment and operate within the Federal and State laws which are in force in the community they are living in.

If the program was particularly successful, so successful that we ‘ran out’ of detainee’s the program could even be extended to include those seeking asylum. In this way the initiative would truly usurp the people smugglers business model. If the Australian people can offer refugees a safer, better deal than the people smugglers, we won’t have to stop any boats or detain anyone.

Given that the costs of detaining illegal arrivals are significant I’m not sure why the government wouldn’t want to at least consider an initiative such as this. These new Australians will increase the demand for services in their local communities. That means there are opportunities for new job’s and genuine growth in these areas. There are a lot of positives. 

It would also be showing genuine leadership on this issue which is a global one. Australia has been criticised by some groups for our policy on refugees. I’m not sure how any of the groups offering those criticisms could continue to criticise if this policy was successful. Perhaps other western countries would follow our lead. Perhaps this is the blueprint for managing the mass migrations of people displaced from the enlarging warzone which is the middle east.

I’d like to think that Australians would be keen to participate in this initiative. Past polling on refugee issues suggests that this might not be the case. At the very least by adopting this approach we give those who would help the opportunity to do so.

 1-  https://ama.com.au/media/ama-speech-prof-owler-ama-asylum-seeker-health-forum