If It's Broken, Fix It.

  Clearly, politics is increasingly becoming a depressing subject for most of us. Voter turnout, a prime indicator of how engaged people feel in the political process, was an abysmal 36.4% in last year's US mid-term elections, hitting a 72-year low. In Canada, the numbers are better, hovering around 60% over the past few elections, but this number has been steadily declining for some time. People are losing faith that their votes will make any difference, and when one looks at how the health of our democracies has been eroded over the past few decades, it becomes easy to understand why.

  The definitions of a “healthy democracy” vary, but there are a number of agreed-upon indicators, as well as a number of common-sense factors that are often used as benchmarks. Generally, democracies are defined by the degree to which the citizenry have control over the political decision making process, by having no unreasonable restrictions against those seeking to represent the people, and by ensuring the freedoms of the people. The people, of course, are of paramount concern, and so it should follow that any democratic government is therefore obliged to create institutions and policies that benefit the public in as broad a way as possible, both in the short and long term. Further, there are many varieties of democracy in the world, and each has its strengths and weaknesses, but given that the world has only seen democracy truly flourish in the last century, we are still learning as a global society what works, and what doesn't. Often, nations have implemented policies that looked good on paper, but in practice had seriously negative side effects, and therefore we must learn from these mistakes, while working to cultivate and develop those policies which have proven beneficial. Creating a healthy democracy is an ongoing process, and so the key point to take away is that we must not allow our democracies to become ossified and inflexible. “Change”, so often a rallying cry for political parties, is not just a talking point to be forgotten after election day, but must be built into any democracy that hopes to survive and thrive long-term in a rapidly changing world. As with evolution, is it not the strongest society that survives (read: the one with the biggest sticks), but the one most adaptive to change.

  Today's democracies have come far, and certainly have much to be proud of, but some very serious problems have crept into the political machinery, which erode our democratic institutions, create a cynical distrust within the electorate, and threaten to derail so much of our progress. Voters are not ignorant of these issues, and overwhelmingly want them addressed. However, the political will has been lacking, leading in turn to an even greater gulf between the citizens and the government, one that will grow until solutions are found. Most of you are probably familiar (at least in passing) with these problems. Here I speculate on some potential solutions.

  Firstly, while it is the citizenry that should ultimately be directing the political process, in the last few decades it has become the corporations that are doing so, both directly and indirectly. As time goes on, this is only becoming more prevalent and problematic, and as a result, policies are now often designed with corporate interests foremost in mind, even if they are detrimental to the public good. It should be obvious that this has to stop, and for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious of these is that (despite what some courts may have been bribed into ruling) corporations are not people. The very idea of “corporate personhood” is a rather absurd one, and yet it is an idea that we have allowed to mold the public sphere for decades. While corporations are not given all of the rights that individuals are under the law, they are given equivalency in many areas, and this actually puts individuals at a disadvantage, as individuals typically lack the resources of large corporations, making it impossible to face them in expensive civil lawsuits, for example.

  Just as it is wise to erect a wall of separation between church and state, so too is it wise to erect a wall between market and state, because the pursuit of the common good can be corrupted just as readily by either. The job of government, in the end, is ultimately to guard our common resources and use them to build mutually beneficial infrastructure. However, when corporations are allowed leeway to plunder public resources and infrastructure for their private gain or run public institutions for profit, the public is always the loser in the end. Corporate interests are not public interests, and this distinction needs to be codified into law. Mixing money and politics results only in corruption, and those who claim otherwise are either shockingly naive, or corrupted themselves.

  Secondly, the means by which we as citizens participate in our democracy must evolve with the times. Even though we now live in the Information Age, our voting methods are still archaic, and we do not take advantage of technology as we should, as a means of monitoring and directing the stewards of our nations. As a result, many people feel disconnected, or entirely divorced from the political process. Electing a representative every few years may have been the best we could do in terms of making the government accountable to the public and enforcing our will up until now, but we have the means to do better moving forward. Polls regarding policy can be conducted in real time online, and thus, if we were to make snap elections a legal possibility past a certain threshold of public demand, politicians would become accountable not just every election cycle, but every day. This sort of public accountability is key in providing a bulwark against corruption, and in ensuring the sort of flexibility that a healthy government must possess.

  A combination of technology and policy could also help to make us more informed and engaged citizens...the burden is, after all, not only on the politicians, but on ourselves. The highlights of legislation should be readily available to all citizens in an easily accessible central location, as should be the core policy and voting history of every political party and party representative. Providing this, along with incentives for involvement, would be a recipe for a better, stronger democracy. Many countries ensure that voting days are holidays, to allow time for even the poorest shift-worker to cast a ballot, and some go so far as to fine those who do not participate. While I am more a fan of the carrot than of the stick, sometimes even the healthiest democracy has to use a little of both to nudge the public in the right direction now and then. After all, an informed and involved public is the best shield against tyranny and corruption that there is.

  Thirdly, the concept of the party system itself is long overdue for an overhaul. Just as public participation ties into ensuring that public (and not corporate) welfare is the focus of public policy, so too does the structure of political systems tie into ensuring civil and representative participation. In the past, parties served the dual purpose of rallying like-minded individuals together and of funding those candidates deemed most likely to win in a race. Now, however, both of these functions have become outmoded via technology, and political parties serve more to factionalize the population than anything else. In the US in particular, having only two parties means that people often do not vote for ideas or for a strong platform (as they should) but mostly vote out of habit or out of “clan loyalty” even when they are frequently doing so against their own interests. Political parties by their very nature facilitate an “Us versus Them” mentality, which, in any political system, leads almost inevitably to gridlock and dysfunction. Two-party systems especially are susceptible to this, as there is no room for middle ground, and the past few years are clear evidence of just how bad this can get. Fundamentally, we all have similar needs and similar goals for our society, so there has to be a better way to find consensus.

  So, if party affiliations are an obstacle, why have parties at all? Like-minded individuals no longer need to go to a physical location in order to rally, nor do they need a party – they merely need a sensible platform, a candidate to facilitate it, and an internet connection to do the rest. Funding, likewise, can be handled online, with politicians running Kickstarter-inspired campaigns...at least until we can do away with money in politics entirely. The future of functional democracies, as I see it, must become party-free, and may the candidates with the best ideas win. As I see it, independents are inherently more trustworthy, because they are riding on their own platform and reputation alone, rather than any political party's. This would also tidily eliminate “habit voting”, and encourage people to be more informed.

  Our democracies can get better. Although the challenge looms large, improving them is not beyond us. We just need to muster the collective will, and elect leaders who won't shy away from the task. It seems fairly obvious that the status quo isn't cutting it, right? Winston Churchill put it best: “Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others that have been tried.” Surely, having come so far, we are ready to iron out some of the bugs, and come up with something even better.  

The Islamic Dark Age

  The events of the past few months and years have certainly highlighted just how bad things are getting in the Middle East. However, in this region of the world, it has been a long downward spiral, virtually uninterrupted for hundreds of years. There are many competing theories as to why this region is now rapidly destabilizing, and no doubt there are a number of factors, but to a student of history the answer should be clear - we have, after all, seen this pattern before. In what we colloquially refer to as the Dark Ages, from roughly the 6^th to the 13^th centuries, Western civilization experienced a similar dramatic collapse in its ability to grow, develop and move forward. Little notable literature was produced, there were few cultural achievements or architectural marvels created, and society stagnated under the auspices of a corrupt religious authority. Superstition reigned, knowledge was not valued or pursued for its own sake, and as a result, the wheels of progress effectively ground to a halt for several hundred years. Eventually, Europeans began to desire and pursue a deeper understanding of the world and the universe around them again, and with immense effort, dragged their struggling societies out of stagnation and into an era of scientific and cultural enlightenment known as the Renaissance. Today however, it is the Middle East and countries under strict Islamic rule that are increasingly embracing religious doctrine over reason and fact, that can only be best understood as an Islamic Dark Age.

  It wasn't always this way. At its peak, Islam was once a proud sponsor of science and the arts, and during this time the lands it controlled expanded, while it flourished culturally. Unlike today, there was also a broad tolerance of religious diversity. Unfortunately, it has largely turned away from this path over the past several hundred years, and although the rise of Western powers certainly played a role in the decline of Islam, this decline has been and will continue to be only further compounded and exacerbated by the rise of religious fanaticism. The valuation of doctrine over the pursuit of knowledge has taken deep root, to the point that science is frequently regarded as a form of Western propaganda (despite the fact that its principles are, of course, universal), and is considered sacrilegious wherever it conflicts with doctrine. This notion is understandable in a way, as it is the embrace of science that allowed Western powers to dominate many Islamic countries for so long, but science is merely a tool, and any tool is ultimately blameless. This is not strictly an Islamic phenomenon of course; many in the U.S. today see evolution as a threat to biblical literalism, and perpetually embarrass themselves by denying mountains of evidence. In the U.S. however, there is a rational, secular counter-argument to such views, while in Muslim countries such views are met with flogging and beheading. By allowing this anti-science mentality to spread like a virus, Islamic countries are virtually guaranteeing that they will be even more handicapped in the future when competing on the global stage. It is particularly stunning when governments and religious bodies in these countries openly condemn a scientific theory, advancement, or science in general, as any leader worth the title should be able to see the bigger picture, and the long-term results of doing so. This is one of the primary mechanisms by which societies fall into decay, akin to shooting oneself in the foot, and we are watching it unfold now, in real time. The West has had a part to play, there is no avoiding this point, but it must also be acknowledged that Islamic societies are just as culpable in their own ongoing decline.

  In the coming century, information will unquestionably be the deciding factor in the success of societies. We are now, like it or not, fully immersed in the Information Age, and while some Islamic countries have embraced communications technology, this is largely not the case. The reason, of course, is that open information is poisonous to religious ideology. The United States demonstrates this perfectly – previously one of the most pious nations anywhere, positively steeped in Christianity, it is now rapidly secularizing. Those who identify as “non-religious” are the fastest growing group, and this decline in religion almost perfectly corresponds to the proliferation of the internet. As children grow up with virtually unlimited access to information, it is much harder to indoctrinate them into one particular religious ideology. Leaders in theocratic countries are well aware of this, and attempt to counteract it by restricting internet access. However, this is a tide that cannot be held back, and the results are typically the same whenever leaders try to do so. The population grows to distrust and eventually despise leaders that don't trust them to think for themselves, they gain access to information anyway through alternate channels, but not before the country is handicapped both technologically and economically. An open marketplace for ideas is much more innovative, more productive, and more competitive. As such, closed societies will inevitably slide into obscurity as the century progresses and the countries of the world become even more interdependent and reliant on innovation as a driver of the economy.

  I make these points because this slide into decay is not inevitable, and it is my hope that it can be avoided. The world of the 21^st century will be one in which all countries will be tied together, closer than ever before, and as such, as one suffers, we all will suffer. Global prosperity will depend on recognizing our mutual interests, and raising those in poverty to a level where they can contribute to global society and the global economy. The old model, where a few prosper at the expense of the majority, is clearly broken, and is in part a driver of much of the extremism we see today, both in the Muslim world and elsewhere. By working to balance economic disparity, while simultaneously encouraging education (particularly of women), societies can be “jump-started”. This method has worked in the past and continues to work today wherever it is tried, but this cannot be done without the active participation of the countries in question. Fundamentally, it will be up to more moderate and progressive Muslims to make their voices heard, and help their societies overcome stigmas against science education and the empowerment of women. Some Muslim countries are leading by example where this is concerned, and they are clearly doing better than their counterparts in many respects. The least progressive countries, it seems, are the ones buoyed by oil wealth, for they do not feel pressure to change as keenly. For the time being at least, these countries, such as Saudi Arabia, can afford to do as they please, but this time is rapidly drawing to a close. The plummeting price of clean energy, in conjunction with a growing global distaste for oil, mean that these societies are living on borrowed time, unless they begin to embrace change now.

  While it may be demonstrable that societies tend to thrive more readily the more secular they are (look to the Scandinavian countries for example), I am not naive enough to think that the Islamic world is going to secularize anytime soon. It is possible, however, for religious societies to prosper, if one major condition is met: religion and government cannot mix. This, the control of the ruling class by the church, was one of the key reasons for the Dark Age in Europe, and it is theocratic rule which is driving Islam into a Dark Age today. Religion may indeed bring fulfilment to some, but it is, at its core, simply not conducive to effective government. Any society that is interested in making progress should recognize this first and foremost, and build up a wall of separation. Beliefs may drive some individuals, but facts are what drive functional policies and, by extension, functional societies.  

The Case for Space

  “I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos, in which we float, like a mote of dust, in the morning sky.” - Carl Sagan

  Carl Sagan is one of my personal heroes. He sparked in me, as he did in an entire generation, a deep curiosity about the cosmos. His passion was contagious, and he made the case for space more eloquently than anyone before or since. He understood, and helped the rest of us to understand, that all of our affairs here on Earth - thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines - all shrink in significance in comparison to the grandeur of the universe that sits on our doorstep. He knew, and worked tirelessly to remind the rest of us, that it is through exploration that we are able to reach our full potential as human beings. He saw how through exploring the cosmos, we might secure a better future, a better understanding of ourselves, while adding significance and meaning to our lives.

  “The cosmos if filled beyond measure of elegant truths, of the exquisite interrelationships of the awesome machinery of nature.” - C.S.

  Out there, waiting for us, is a vastness that most of us have difficulty comprehending. Think about this, and then think about how much we have gained every time we have worked seriously to push our boundaries in the past. Merely visiting our own moon sparked the discovery of a host of new technologies; so too will pushing out into the solar system move our society forward, in new and often unexpected ways. There is just so much out there that we don't know about or understand, we can barely even begin to define the scope of our own ignorance. What this means, however, is that at virtually every turn we will discover something new to awe and inspire us.

  “How lucky we are to live in this time – the first moment of human history when we are, in fact, visiting other worlds.” - C.S.

  If I were to name the greatest legacy left to us by the previous generation, I would say it was to put a man on the moon. I don't think I would be alone in saying so either. This one event more than any other inspired the world, and defined who we are as a species - we are explorers. We may forget this sometimes, mired down as we often are in our day-to-day troubles, but we should fight to uphold this legacy. Mars, Venus, the rest of our solar system, and the worlds that lie beyond are waiting for us, but only if we maintain our momentum.

  “The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean – recently we've waded a little way out, and the water seems inviting.” - C.S.

  Space has its challenges, sure. Sometimes people die trying to explore it. But every job has risks, and these have to be balanced against the rewards. Space is the ultimate challenge, but the rewards – technological, social, material – are almost incalculable. Furthermore, we know more now than we ever have about how to cope with the challenges, and we can adapt. The smartphone in your pocket has more power than the early space shuttles, after all. There may be setbacks, but if we try, we will ultimately succeed, and emerge stronger on the other side.

  “The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will, one day, venture to the stars.” - C.S.

  The moon was a testing ground, the first step on a path that will ultimately lead us to the stars. First, however, there is work to be done in our own cosmic neighbourhood, and it is best if we get to it. There are so many goals that are now technically within our grasp, that can give us the footholds in space needed to take even bolder steps beyond. A permanent base on the moon could provide a cheaper launching point for new spacecraft and a source of raw materials. A space elevator would drastically reduce the cost of sending materials into orbit and beyond. A Mars colony would help to ensure the survival of humanity should anything happen to Earth, as well as provide a base for future terraforming efforts. Asteroid mining could provide a huge influx of wealth into the world economy, as many are rich in precious metals and rare earths. Tackling these projects will not only unite us as a species, but enrich us immensely. In a few decades, we could become a truly planetary society – united in purpose, free of poverty, bolstered by incredible new technologies, and ready to work toward and even better future.

  “A still more glorious dawn awaits; not a sunrise, but a galaxy-rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns.” - C.S.

  Once we have spread to the far corners of our home system, we will no doubt be ready and eager for a bigger challenge. Already we are able to look into space and see planets, some very much like the Earth, circling other stars. Already we are studying the basic principles of faster-than-light travel. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to see humanity spread across our corner of the galaxy in a few hundred years. Once we spread beyond this solar system, our future as a species is virtually guaranteed. Our descendants, because of our efforts, can be wiser, healthier, happier, free of disease, famine, war, and many of the problems that we take for granted today. The humans that see that future may think, act and look very different from you or I, but it is our generation that can lay the foundations for that future.

  Or, if we forget how far we've come, and lose ourselves in our petty Earthly affairs, we may see this future slip through our fingers. Trapped on our one small world, runaway global warming, an asteroid, a plague, nuclear war, or the eventual destruction of our sun will eventually erase us from history. This, ultimately, is the case for space – survive (and thrive), or go extinct. I believe that in addition to being explorers, we are also survivors, and that we will make the right choice.