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.

Release Your Inner Critic

  There are generally 3 types of critic: The Professional Critic, The Armchair Critic, and the Social Critic. The word critic is usually associated with Professional Critics, or critics of pop culture – movies, music, and literature. They offer their opinion, which is presumably (hopefully) tempered with experience and refined sensibilities, as a means to make a living. While they may irritate artists, particularly when their criticisms aren't flattering, they do serve a useful purpose by helping the rest of us to avoid the “fluff” that makes up a large portion of pop culture, allowing us to spend our precious leisure time appreciating the art that truly deserves our attention.

  Then, there are of course the Armchair Critics. These are regular people, who mostly enjoy criticism for its own sake, and who do not serve any useful purpose. While this type may think their tastes are worth sharing, this is, in my experience, typically not the case. These are people who, rather than helping to elevate the tastes of others, criticize more as a means of making themselves feel better about their own lack of any discernible talent. It is always easier to criticize than to create, and the reason this group is particularly irritating to most people is that all they offer is criticism, rarely constructive, and without putting forth any better alternatives. This essentially boils down to useless whining.

  Finally, there is the Social Critic, the sort that I'm talking about. Overall, They are not Professional, as they only occasionally concern themselves with pop culture, and are rarely paid for their observations. Nor are they Armchair Critics, because they are, as a rule, genuinely informed about the subject matter, and do offer constructive criticism, paired very often with alternative visions of how things might be. The Social Critic, as the name implies, is concerned with issues that run deeper than most of those addressed by pop culture – politics, education, crime, religion and other social issues. I believe that they are the most useful, as they are most needed in order to have a functional and vibrant democracy. Unfortunately, they are also the very type that is most lacking in many societies today. This is the sort of critic I aspire to be, and encourage others to become – one who can recognize deficiencies in our policies, and through public criticism of these flaws, spur the kind of debate that in turn stimulates change.

  Critics are important because discussion and debate are core components of any evolving society. Without these, societies cease adapting to the times, fall into dogmatic repetition of old mistakes, and ultimately crumble from within. Fear of criticism is the ultimate weakness of dictators and despots for this very reason, and the reason why such regimes all ultimately fail. Journalists used to play the role of Social Critic, but in this they are increasingly losing their backbone, afraid of being excluded should they ask difficult questions. The competitive nature of journalism makes this an inevitable problem unless every journalist sticks to their principles, but it seems clear that principles are less important in journalism today than they were in the past...one look at FOX News should be ample evidence of that. Partisan politics is taking priority over objective truth in many cases, which results in journalism barely worthy of the title, and public discussion that solves nothing because it asks all the wrong questions. This is where the new Social Critic comes in...the blogger, the private observer of the public sphere, the voice from the crowd. With no career or political agenda to advance, such “citizen journalists” can be objective in a way that many professional journalists can't, and honest in a way that public figures often shy away from. Political correctness has no place in either a meaningful debate or an interesting blog, and this is but one of the many reasons why the internet is a unique and powerful tool to promote free speech.

  Of course, the internet is full of Armchair Critics...or “trolls”, as they are better known online. It is human nature to voice an opinion even if it is loosely informed, and to avoid admitting a mistake at all costs. This type of discourse dominates the internet, because the anonymity it offers lends itself to obnoxious behaviour. However, on some level we all value the truth, and for some of us this is far more important than getting our two cents in at every opportunity. When we place value and emphasis on objective truth, and when important issues are discussed without anonymity, we can use criticism to burn through the bad ideas, and collaborate to find new and better ones.

  Criticism indeed has some negative connotations because it is essentially making fun of bad ideas. Some ideas, however, deserve to be made fun of. We have to get past the idea that we should never offend anyone, as if being offended gives us some sort of special right or bargaining chip with which to hold the rest of society hostage to our opinions. Sometimes the only way to break down bad ideas is to relentlessly criticize them, regardless of how offended this may make the people who try to prop them up. The Flat Earth, Earth as the centre of the universe, slavery – these are all bad ideas that fell under a relentless assault from informed critics. Ideas which were once considered sacred or core philosophies have been tossed into the dustbin of history, and rightly so, because enough people spoke out against them. Bad ideas often cloak themselves in a layer of righteousness in order to deflect criticism, but being aware of this tactic can help us to immunize ourselves against it. If everyone simply asked questions, relentlessly, where questions are merited, our society could rid itself of bad ideas in no time at all.

  If you desire a life in a free society, one which is modern, just and well-off, being an informed Social Critic is the most productive way to make that happen. Social injustice happens everywhere, all the time, but where leaders know that the people will hold their feet to the fire it happens a lot less. An empowered, educated, and above all vocal population are the ultimate antidote to oppression and bad ideas, and a fertile ground where new ideas can grow. Don't be afraid to be offensive if required – if you're right, people will still respect you, and if they don't, then they're not worth worrying about anyway. In the end, you will accomplish far more and influence many more people if you speak your mind than if you stay silent. There is plenty of time for silence in the grave.  

The Closet Socialist

  I'm willing to go out on a limb, and bet that you actually like socialism more than you might think. That's right, the closet Socialist isn't me, it's you. Frankly, I'm not in the closet about anything.

  In an episode of his show Real Time, comedian Bill Maher spoke at length on the the subject not too long ago. There, he made a simple yet important point: if people actually knew more about what Socialism implies, they would probably realize that it's not a dirty word. It is, in fact, one of the more successful schools of political thought, with the potential to help take our emerging global society to the next level. Let me tell you why in a little more detail.

  In a nutshell, Socialism is simply about sharing risks, responsibility and goals; by working together, we reduce our collective risk, share the collective burden of our responsibilities, and achieve mutual goals that would be far beyond the reach of any one of us working alone. It's about sharing expenses, so we all pay less in times of trouble, and about getting more bang from our collective tax dollars. Smart countries understand this, and although they don't all call it Socialism, to the extent that they do these things, that's exactly what it is. Here in Japan, where I've lived for some time, I see Socialism at work all the time. It's a very collectivist culture, and as such, they understand that working together effectively is a great strength in a society. As a small island nation, Japan has made such a huge mark on the world and in the Pacific Rim in particular because it knows all about teamwork. There is a sense here that everyone watches out for one another, and working toward a common purpose, and this is a powerful motivator. The workforce here is willing to make sacrifices in the name of the common good, and as such are capable of great feats of productivity and innovation relative to their numbers and resources. This is the very kind of motivator needed in any society that ever aspires to call itself “great”.

  In Western society, and in the US in particular, the opposite mentality is often popularized: individuality. The idea is that it's better to be able to stand on your own, fend for yourself...the rugged individualist, the self-made man, these are iconic images in Western society. But unfortunately, the entire concept is a lie. On my more cynical days, I think it was a lie constructed to sell more cigarettes and blue jeans, but there is also something deeper to it than that. During the Cold War, even though the West had many of the same social practices as the Communists, there was a practical need to differentiate itself from its ideological adversary. It chose to do so largely by emphasizing the collectivist/individualist dichotomy. In the poisonous and distrustful political atmosphere of the time, any policy or person with even a whiff of Communist on it became anathema, even if the policy was hugely beneficial or the person a well-intentioned genius. Socialism became an unfortunate casualty of that time. The stale remnants of this Cold War mentality linger even still, far beyond any usefulness, hindering our progress, and it is well past time to dispel them.

  Individualism is a lie because we all, to a greater or lesser extent, live in a society, and depend upon that society for a great many things. While a skilled outdoorsman might claim to be able to survive without the rest of society for a time, he still grew up in a society, got his education as a school paid for by tax dollars, received medical care at a community hospital, and drives the roads paid for by his fellow citizens. While there are those that complain about paying taxes, they nevertheless enjoy the benefits that tax dollars provide, and complain loudly when such amenities are taken away. Living in modern societies, we are products of a social system, like it or not, and the quality of our lives depends very heavily upon just how seriously our particular government takes its social responsibilities. Contrary to the beliefs of some, it is not the job of the government to merely concoct onerous legislation and collect tax money. The most critical responsibilities of any government revolve around how well it administers its tax income to provide essential services. Any government anywhere is not worthy of leadership if it cannot provide for the health and welfare of its people. The popular counter-argument, of course, is that the free market will fill whatever gaps the government can't. Some might go so far as to argue that the government shouldn't be involved in social services at all, leaving even hospitals, prisons and fire departments in the hands of private enterprise. I would struggle to think of any worse idea than this, and for an immense plethora of reasons. However, since I want to keep this under 10 pages, I'll just address the most important ones. 

  Firstly, private enterprise is not looking out for you, and it never will be. Any for-profit organization will share this flaw – the profit motive inevitably poisons its motivations, and corporations have proven time and time again that they are willing to sacrifice quality, people's health, public welfare, public resources, the environment, and just about anything else in order to pad their profit margins. No matter how well regulated, businesses are in it for their shareholders, and if they think they can get away with cutting corners, that is exactly what they will do. In regards to essential services, where you want to ensure quality, a bureaucracy may not always be perfect, but at least with government oversight you are eliminating the profit motive from the equation. Government agencies still can (and do, in many cases) make a profit, but when we're talking about educating our children, safeguarding our health, maintaining our critical infrastructure or protecting us when we sleep, profit should never be the primary motivator. In a socialist system, it isn't.

  Secondly, the free market is not perfectly self-correcting. This is a myth that many conservatives seem to believe with a sort of religious zeal, but it is simply not true. The worst financial disasters of the century, including the recent recession from which we are just now recovering, were perpetuated by financial organizations and corporations that were allowed to run largely without any serious regulation. Left to their own devices, they did not create a perfectly fair and balanced system – they engineered a system that robbed people of their life savings in order to line the pockets of an elite few. Due to weak legislation, they were free to manipulate the markets, exploiting loopholes and nearly bringing the world economy to its knees in a staggering display of self-interest, cronyism and corruption. Afterwards, these same organizations accepted taxpayer money in the form of bailouts, from which, I might add, they saw fit to pay their chief executives salaries that could only be described as grotesque and embarrassing, given their very recent and very staggering incompetence. In short, this does not sound like a self-correcting system to me. Government oversight and regulation are how the people ensure their rights are not trampled on by corporations, and the moment these regulations are relaxed, as we have seen, the trampling almost immediately begins. In a socialist system, the government does not dictate how the market works, as many may think it does. Rather, it harnesses its innovative power to maximize the market's potential, via tax incentives and similar programs, while mitigating the harm a free market may cause, such as damage to the environment or to public health. Common sense, right?

  Finally, I would argue that too much choice is a bad thing. While the free market is admittedly great at providing consumers with options, these options are not always necessary, or different from one another in any but the most cosmetic ways. While some choice is certainly desirable, surveys and other market research often find that consumers are actually overwhelmed by the huge array of choices that they can find in most Western markets. This is a large part of why Western markets produce such gargantuan amounts of waste – with so many options, many simply get tossed aside. It also creates a dangerous false mindset that there must be limitless supplies of everything available in order to produce such options. This is turn makes people waste more and conserve less – pretty much the exact opposite of what we need if we are to have any hope of combating climate change. What we need are goods that are functional, sustainably produced, easily recyclable, and long lasting. The market has demonstrated (ad nauseum) that it won't do this without regulation. Anything that costs a bit extra up front, even if it may pay off in the long term for both society and the business itself, is generally a no-go. The regulation of the means production, while perhaps a touchy subject due to its “Commie” overtones, is actually a very viable argument if we ever hope to reign in our society's rampant consumption and waste. Perhaps, with the advent of 3-D printing, consumers will be able to bring the means of production home, making exactly what they need exactly when they need it. By encouraging this technology, government could bypass mass producers entirely, and even put the worst environmental offenders out of business by eroding their market. This is socialized production, and to me, a very elegant solution to a number of problems at once. Similarly, subsidies and other means of government encouragement could also to socialize energy production, with solar panels on every home, making the grid much more diffuse, clean, stable and resistant to natural disasters. This is already widely practised in Japan, and with great success – it probably even saved lives after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

  So we all, in some way, benefit from socialist principles. In essence, it is strength in numbers. When you think about it, this is really all that society is in the first place, so it does baffle me a little how we got to the place where some of us actually ridicule socialism. Whenever people take the time to understand and dispel preconceptions, it's not even a very hard sell; most people find that somewhere, deep down, they actually supported socialism all along, and all they needed was a little push to come out of the closet.

Decentralization - Reinventing 21st Century Society

  Society has a duty to change - if it doesn't, history demonstrates very effectively how quickly a society can stagnate. Systems designed to handle the demands of one century are inevitably incapable of handling the demands of the next, be they material or social, and this will only become more true as time goes on, given that technology has accelerated (and will likely continue to accelerate) in its rate of advance. As advances in one field compound and magnify advances in others, as improvements in communication increase the rate at which this cross-pollination can happen, and as our global research and development base reaches historically unprecedented proportions, we will see our lives transform increasingly rapidly. Examining the rate at which computer processing power has increased over the past century provides an excellent metaphor for this type of advance – doubling every two years, as Moore's Law accurately predicted it would, means that it is undergoing exponential growth. This type of increase is sometimes counter-intuitive, as we typically think of growth curves as fluctuating, sloping, and gradual, like the stock market. However, in certain optimal conditions, growth can be explosive. Any system that can regularly double in a given amount of time soon reaches astronomical numbers: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576 – an increase of 1,048,576x in 21 'generations'. This is exactly how our technology is set to advance, and this is why we must be ready to adapt.

  There are many potential ways that we can brace our society for change and uncertainty, but I believe one method in particular, decentralization, merits a closer look. I believe this because it is a time-tested method in the natural world, and there are numerous ways in which it can benefit human society – but most notably, it can help us adapt. Ants are an excellent example of decentralization in nature, and the fact that they are ubiquitous in almost every region of the world demonstrates just how successful this strategy can be. Every ant is capable of performing any task necessary to the colony, and by coordinating effectively, they can accomplish immense tasks with remarkable efficiency, and work with a flexibility that most human societies can only dream of. While decentralization is not a new concept in political circles, it is unfortunately not widely utilized. Why not? Not because a centralized system offers any significant advantages, but because a centralized system means that those in power can more easily stay in power, and funnel resources more efficiently into the hands of a select few. While in the past our societies may have had to rely on centralized leadership to coordinate production, this is in fact no longer true. Many of the tasks that we still assume must be accomplished in a top-down way can now be localized, and done just as efficiently from the bottom up. Moreover, in doing so, we can solve a number of problems at once. Researching this actually blew my mind a little over just how many problems it can solve, and I hope it will have the same effect on you.

  First off, centralized power distribution is a primary driver of environmental destruction. Coal, oil and other fossil fuels are burned in massive plants which then send power along the grid to our homes, but this entire paradigm is now outdated. The technology now exists for each home to generate its own clean power, and thus free itself from both the grid and fossil fuels. In Japan, where I live as I write this, homes were equipped with solar panels in many parts of the country long ago. Because many homes were in remote areas, and because earthquakes here made the likelihood of power outages greater, many chose this method to be energy self-sufficient, and it has worked. More importantly, it worked even before the high-efficiency solar panels that we have today were available, meaning that with current technology, this option is workable anywhere in the world, and at a fraction of the price. Not only will this mean a vast decrease in fossil fuel use, but it will mean a more secure power grid, less susceptible to disaster, or even terrorist attack. The great blackout that occurred in the eastern US and Canada in 2003 because of a cascading failure could never happen again. A decentralized network is a robust network, one which can flexibly adapt to changing power demands, and which would prepare us for virtually any contingency. Excesses can even be fed back into the grid, meaning that instead of paying for power, you could actually make money back. Let that sink in. This is basically a win/win/win; for you, for society, and for the planet. No-brainer, right?

  Food distribution is another key area that should be decentralized, and again for numerous reasons. Efficiency is certainly a key reason – our current system of international shipping is unbelievably, shamefully wasteful, and it's well past time to address this. Because of inefficiencies at various stages of the food chain, half of all the world's food is wasted. Yes, you read it right - HALF, and while many people starve to death every day. It's staggering but it's true, and it should tell us that our current system is badly broken. Furthermore, shipping food consumes vast amounts of fossil fuel, even though many of the foods that are shipped could be easily produced locally. By working to localize our food sources, we would dramatically cut back on waste and CO² emissions, and even reduce the need for preservatives and pesticides. Why are we not doing this already? Vested interests, of course. Food producers are a political force, but this is a battle that can be won at a local level. Many communities are already starting “urban gardens”, converting rooftops, balconies, parks, unused land, and even their front lawns into viable food sources. This is something else that they have subsidized in Japan, with many urban spaces set aside for agriculture, and the extra greenery makes the cities much more livable. Indoor hydroponic farming is another potential solution (pun intended). It's been around in some form for hundreds of years, but now, thanks to the addition of LED lighting and other new technology to the mix, it is becoming incredibly efficient. By controlling every critical factor, indoor farms can now produce crops with factory-like efficiency, and of incredibly high quality. They are also, by merit of being indoors, completely pesticide free. If people embrace this trend and push their politicians into nurturing local markets, we can have cheaper, fresher, more secure food, while cutting waste dramatically. Again, everybody wins - we just have to want it badly enough.

  Finally, the marketplace. Markets used to all be local, or at least regional – global corporations are only a recent invention, but when one stops to examine the handiwork of major transnationals over the last few decades, one eventually wonders why we even allow them to exist at all. Large corporations are the primary drivers behind much of the world's environmental devastation, as they pillage natural resources in a blind rush to satisfy a public made ravenous by their own manipulative advertising, filling landfills with mountains of cheap, disposable goods along the way. This cycle will not end well for the planet - most of us know this, and the ones who deny it are usually selling something. Furthermore, corporations are foremost driven not by the public good, but by the bottom line, and too often the public has suffered as a result. Local markets are the solution. Consumers can change the system by buying locally whenever they can, politicians by creating more opportunities for smaller businesses, and both by divesting from large companies, especially ones that act unethically. Corporations have abused the power that they have accumulated, and it's time society pushed back by hitting them where it hurts - in the wallet. A more localized system is a more socially responsible system, where buyers and sellers can talk face-to-face, and it is one that can generate more sorely-needed local jobs. Corporations have demonstrated that when given free reign and tax breaks, they do not tend to create more jobs, but rather prefer to cut them and centralize, while shipping what jobs they do create to countries with atrocious human rights and where they can pay poverty wages. We should work to end this failed social experiment, and create a more responsible marketplace. Having been raised on corporate capitalism, this is a daunting prospect for many of us, but it can be done, and there are many of us who are already pushing back.

  For our society to adapt efficiently, it must be able to adapt swiftly on a local level, without relying too much on central government. Governments move at a glacial pace, and often in the opposite direction as public opinion, funded as they often are by special interest groups. Like a colony of ants, a collection of small communities can make a monumental difference when working together, even on a national scale, while each simultaneously maintains the ability to provide for itself. This self-sufficiency in turn means that government can spend less time worrying about local issues, and more time ensuring national and international issues are resolved intelligently. Local self-sufficiency translates into overall efficiency, and in the end this will mean more wealth to go around. If we want our standards of living to improve instead of backslide this century without jeopardizing the environment, decentralizing may just be the key. 

On Being Liberal

I realize that my blog is screamingly Liberal, Libertarian, and about as Left as you can go. I fully acknowledge this, and make no pretensions to being neutral as far as politics are concerned. I am confident that I have very good reasons for my beliefs, and when I talk about politics, it's not simply a statement of belief, but rather a slightly editorialized analysis of the facts that I have spent the better part of my life poring over. Social theory is pretty much what I'm all about, and politics, when you boil it down, is really just social theory. So, while everyone is entitled to their political opinion, I think it's fair to say that people who have taken the time to research human psychology and social theory should be taken a little more seriously when talking about politics than people who have not.

I have of course heard the argument that Psychology and Sociology are “soft sciences”, and as such do not tell us anything concrete about how the real world works, but to be blunt, this is usually said by people who have never studied either, and thus have no idea what they're talking about. The social sciences, like any field in science, develop hypotheses based on observations, and then refines these hypotheses over time by conducting tests and gathering real, quantifiable data. While it is difficult to peer inside the human mind with perfect accuracy, we can understand a great deal about what motivates us, what makes us happy, what promotes our well-being in the long term, and these are not trivial questions. These are the type of questions we should be asking if we really care about improving the society we live in, and we should hold politicians accountable when they don't bother to ask these questions, or fail to listen when science provides them with answers. The solutions that are offered by the social sciences do, in fact, provide measurable positive results when applied to the real world, and so allowing ideology to trump sociology is, to me, both unforgivable and irresponsible.

Liberalism is, to me, simply associated with a higher level of scientific literacy, and a better familiarity with the facts. Facts matter - this is just the way the universe works. The world cares little for what we want, but ideology still plays a large role in politics – we vote for the person who makes us feel better, or says the things we want to hear, or who agrees with our opinions. Instead of examining the issues, the facts that surround them, and the interpretation of the facts that shape the platforms of each party, many voters just vote the same way they always have, assuming that their party will get its facts straight. This is, sadly, not always the case. I would go so far as to say it is not even often the case. An extreme example is the Tea Party in the US, which repeatedly uses talking points that are just factually incorrect. They just make things up out of thin air sometimes, because they know that their voter base will not bother to check facts. While this is not quite as pronounced in other countries, it does happen all the time, and if the public made an effort to be better informed, these parties would quickly be out of business. When one jettisons ideology, what one is left with is utilitarianism. What works and what doesn't become the driving questions, and as far as I'm concerned, this is all that politics should concern itself with. Full stop.

It might help at this point to define our terms. Saying 'left' and 'right' can mean different things to different people, so let's clarify exactly what I mean. While there are certain policies that have been claimed by both sides of the political spectrum over the decades, it is nonetheless fair to say that certain policies have been characteristic of each side of the political spectrum in general. As I've mentioned, the left is known for being socially liberal, exemplified by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's famous quote: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” The right, in contrast, often feels compelled to use the machinery of government to impose social mores. The left, typically, believes in the utility of social institutions, and will fund them as such. The right typically does neither, assuming that the market will fill whatever functions that society requires of it. The left sees social spending as an investment, one that will pay large future dividends. The right tends to ridicule such expenditures as wastes of taxpayer money, and promotes austerity as 'financial responsibility'. The left is focused on the priorities of the lower and middle classes and of individuals, while the right consistently demonstrates how it favors the rich, and the well-being of businesses over the well-being of individuals. None of these statements should be controversial – they are based on the sorts of bills that left and right parties try to pass and on the actions that their politicians take when elected – but it's amazing how confused these issues can become, given how often politicians will say one thing and then do another. To be fair, this happens across the political spectrum, and while I tend to agree more with the platforms put forth by the left, greater accountability would be something that could benefit every political party on Earth. In the end, they have to be judged by what they do, not what they say, and then held accountable if they do something irresponsible.

Now, I think it's worth stepping back and taking a look at the social policies from either end of the political spectrum over the past fifty years, and simply analyzing how well these have played out respectively. Since many of these policies are interrelated, for simplicity I'll divide them into two broader categories: Social Mores, and Social Investment. No ideology, just the facts, what works and what doesn't.

1. Social Mores: There are several areas where social norms have been debated hotly between the right and left, but the top two are most likely sex and drug use. In areas with more liberal policies toward sex, that allow certain forms of prostitution, access to pornography, and so forth, the cases of rape and sexually transmitted disease tend to decrease, and do so dramatically when paired with comprehensive sexual education. In contrast, the more conservative policies that restrict the sex trade simply tend to drive it underground, and where sex education is stigmatized, teenage pregnancies and disease both skyrocket, because people are just too ill-equipped to protect themselves. Abstinence is simply an unrealistic expectation to have of a highly sexually motivated species like our own, and when it is forcibly imposed due to some antiquated cultural stigma, the results are unsurprisingly disappointing. The Drug War also proves how disastrous it is to try and dictate private behaviour – people generally do what they want to do, and trying to force them to act a certain way only breeds resentment, while wasting a lot of money in the process. In areas that have treated drug use as a public health issue, favoring education and prevention over criminalization, rates of abuse have decreased, while governments have saved millions of dollars in tax revenue. In places where the sale of soft drugs like marijuana is taxable, the government actually sees a huge boom in tax income, that can be invested in any number of beneficial social programs. I think, in terms of social mores, the practical advantages of the liberal position should be obvious. On the right many people seem to vote for restrictive policies because they feel it's the "right thing to do", but ironically, these sort of policies lead to even more unnecessary suffering. 

2. Social Investment: In countries that invest in education, the result, shockingly, is a better educated population. This, in turn, has allowed these countries to pull ahead economically, as their citizens can compete globally for jobs on the cutting edge, and often bring that experience back to their home countries later in life, where they reinvest this knowledge. The same “butterfly effect” has been demonstrated with other social programs as well, with dollars invested generating huge returns down the line. Well-managed government programs have demonstrated their effectiveness in managing public health, stimulating small business growth, reducing poverty, and any number of other areas. Conversely, when such national institutions are privatized, the result is equally consistent – corporations, driven by the bottom line, are motivated to cut corners, and as such the quality of such services decreases, often dramatically. Competition, which is supposed to facilitate quality control in the free market, does not work when large corporations are given monopolistic control and a captive market. “Trickle-down”, a theory from the right, in which society helps subsidize the rich so that they may “create jobs”, is now largely proven to be nonsense. In the real world, quite the opposite proves true; investment in the individual, such as a strong minimum wage and strong social support for those who are struggling, creates a stable base for the economy. Workers with more stability and income tend to spend more, which fuels new and existing businesses, allowing business owners and the more wealthy to flourish as well. As it happens, the economy works better when fueled from the bottom up than the top down. Austerity measures, when enforced, choke off this flow of capital through the economy, and for a policy that has so often been put forth, is remarkably ineffective. This is not theory – this is just what happens, and the data shows this very clearly.

This, in a nutshell, is the liberal position, at least as I see it. It's not that we are dogmatic in our beliefs (at least not for the most part), they simply make the most sense, given the available information. The key difference, I think, is the ability on the left to change opinion based on new information. While this ability is not exclusive to the left by any means, I have noticed that it is weighted quite heavily in that direction. I suppose in writing this, my goal is to appeal to those on the right that carry this trait, and who simply vote the way they do out of habit. I would ask you to expose yourself to the facts, and simply be objective about what works, what doesn't, and which policies actually offer the most realistic hope for a better future.  

Playing IS Learning

 Kids are naturally very enthusiastic learners. During the first few years of life, they are constantly exploring, testing their environments, and absorbing information faster than at any other time in their lives. Then, tragically, something happens to change all that. I believe that that something is what we colloquially refer to as “the educational system”.

 The system commonly used in most of the world today - that is, formalized and structured learning in a uniform classroom environment - is accepted in many places as “the right way”, but...is it? If so many young people can be turned off subjects or school entirely by the time they finish high school, then maybe we should fundamentally re-examine the way we approach education. In some places they have, and the results might surprise you.

 Alternative schools that do not follow the traditional model have started popping up in a lot of places. These schools often allow a much more flexible exploration of the material, and learning strategies that are more tailored to each student. Most of us figure out pretty quickly in life that we're all different, but bizarrely it is only recently that we are starting to apply this common knowledge toward how we educate our children. Learning styles and strengths can vary widely from child to child, and so it stands to reason that a one-size-fits-all approach to education will not allow each child to maximize their potential. Alternative schools give the students the freedom to follow their own interests, facilitating and guiding them as they do so. They also provide a wide array of learning materials, so that visual, auditory and “read-and write” learners can all benefit.

 The successful outcomes in these schools demonstrate that alternative approaches can work, and even in some cases surpass expectation. I believe the reason for this is really quite simple: a student only learns as much as their attention span will allow, and the more interesting a class is, the more of the material they will retain, and the more they will be motivated to learn. Successful people in every field are, after all, the ones that have a passion for what they do, and it is this passion that drove them to learn everything they could about that field in the first place. The successful educator is therefore one who can double as an entertainer, and spark a student's curiosity. This curiosity, once it is ignited, will burn within them, and motivate them to learn more on their own than they can ever be coerced into learning otherwise. Just look at how quickly kids master video games, and the endless hours they devote to them – it's because they're fun, and the kids are interested. Now, think about how kids behave when forced into an activity that they have no interest in – lethargic, inattentive, and generally disengaged. Which do you honestly think is a better way to learn?

 To me, playing and learning are virtually the same thing. I'm a lifelong gamer, and so I have a fair bit of experience on this subject. For myself and my friends, there is nothing more intriguing than to learn the rules of a new game, and then, over time, achieve mastery of that game. I remember being told when I was young that games are for kids, a waste of time, and that they “rot your brain”. It seems, however, that my hobby has been vindicated by science. Studies have consistently demonstrated that gaming can sharpen key cognitive skills, including attention allocation, spatial resolution in visual processing, and mental rotation abilities. Many skills can be trained in a relatively short period, and these are skills that can be essential in a number of fields, particularly those predicted to be important in the next century, like science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

 Furthermore, I believe that these benefits can be extended into other areas, by carefully crafting activities designed to both educate and entertain. While we do have certain material to cover as teachers, there is very little that says exactly how we have to teach it. Textbooks are only a guideline, and it is up to us to engage students creatively. I certainly try to do so in the English classroom, and the results are encouraging. Having participated in both “by-the-book” lessons and having personally conducted hundreds of classes centred around “learning activities”, and I can attest that the differences are fairly obvious and dramatic. The most obvious is that the students fall asleep a lot less in the activity-centred lessons, and I'm of the opinion that students generally learn more when they're conscious. I know, it's a bit of a stretch. Secondly, they are for the most part trying to learn, actively striving for understanding, and it's hard to argue that this could ever be a bad thing. While sometimes designing lessons that stimulate students interest may divert from the designated textbook material, maintaining interest should be considered the more important priority in language learning. It is after all a huge undertaking to learn a language, and without enough motivation, there is little likelihood that any worthwhile progress can be made. If “learning exhaustion” sets in, you can teach textbook lessons until you're blue in the face, but it will be a wasted effort.

 Games need not be just games. They can (and do) have real educational value; that's the whole point. Using activities and stimulating material is simply the best way to trick ourselves into learning without ever realizing we are doing so. By making a puzzle out of a learning point, and forcing students to figure it out for themselves, we make this knowledge a prize to be won, and once they see it this way, they will not likely forget it. Perhaps the idea that games may help educate more effectively than simply giving people information straight out is counter-intuitive to some. However, our sometimes quirky human psychology does play a major role in how we learn, and we cannot ignore it if we hope to teach effectively. Teaching and psychology (particularly child psychology) have a great deal of overlap, and the teachers of the future may just benefit from being part teacher, part psychologist, and part gamer. I believe that only by tying the three together can we reach as many children as possible, as often as possible, and have both teachers and students enjoy the experience.