Challenge 327 Response

by Gabriel Timar

Re: Gabriel’s Tsunami

Dear Don, I studied the challenges and I thought I’d give you my thoughts on the questions.

10. A. There is absolutely nothing wrong with democratic government and a free market economy. The problem is the quality of the people in decision-making positions. A democratic yet efficient social order is described in my sci-fi novel “The Falcon Cover-Up,” which is the final stage of editing. With your permission, I am quoting from the partially edited manuscript.

Excerpts from The Falcon Cover-Up
a science fiction novel by Gabriel Timar

“We have a few democratic countries and a number of states where dictators rule [on Earth],” Barbara [the terrestrial from the early 21st century] said.

“That is exactly where our so-called reborn democracy got us too,” she [Lee, the female spaceship captain from 23rd-century Earth] continued. “We re-established the political parties, the parliamentary system and elected leaders in each administrative units. This worked well for a while, but corruption put an end to it, and we were back where we started, the politicians wanting to enhance their popularity started to give away many things; like free schools, free medical care, free housing, and even free food. Socialism was reborn.”

“Socialism, is a very nice utopist ideology” Barbara said.

“That’s right. Eventually, the people stopped working, and there was nobody to produce the things the leaders wanted to give away. Fortunately, the leader of a large American administrative unit, Governor Korix, introduced a new system of government. This was highly successful and the other administrative units adopted it quickly. Although it is known as the Korix-system, the masses call it the logical republic,” Lee said.

“What was the essence of this system?”

“The cornerstone of the Korix-system is the basic concept of everybody having certain inalienable rights and obligations. If one does not fulfill the obligations, should not expect the rights.”

“It sounds like our democracy, with a right-wing twist,” Barbara replied. “How did you implement it?”

“We did it simply by finding the appropriate leaders. It was not easy, because we had to dissolve all the political parties. Now, all candidates wishing to stand for an elected position must take a qualifying examination. I took mine but failed.”

“When can you take it again?”

“Never,” she said sadly. “Everybody can take this exam only once in a lifetime. You cannot prepare for it, because it is not a test of your knowledge but an examination of character, principles, and decision-making abilities. During the test, they hook up the candidate to a polygraph, and if s/he lies just once, the failure is automatic. The few who pass the test, get an implanted polygraph, and they can stand for election.”

“Can they turn off their polygraph?” Barbara asked.

“No, not even when they make their campaign speeches. This way they cannot lie to the electorate.”

“Not bad. Korix had to be a very smart, pragmatic fellow.”

“He was. Anyway, our current system of governing eventually found its way into the business world,” Lee explained. “If you do not obtain an implanted polygraph, nobody would do business with you. I have one.”

“Does it make a noise if you lie?”

“I don’t know,” she replied. “I had it implanted about five years ago and I have not told a lie since then. If all goes well, in a few decades we would not have to have the implants, because telling the truth would become second nature to everybody.”

“Are you telling me that nowadays nobody lies on [your] Earth?” Barbara asked.

“Not really. Doctors are the only people permitted to lie if the patient’s condition and psychological state require it.”

You might be interested in Robert J. Sawyer’s “hominid” novels. In the first one, Hominids, Sawyer describes a Neanderthal civilization in a parallel universe. Its society revolves around an “alibi machine” (or a term to that effect); it’s a computer mainframe that maintains video surveillance of all citizens everywhere and at all times. Thus, if a crime is committed, a visual record of it is on file. Or if you misplace your car keys, you need only review the video record of what you’ve done all day to see where you left them.

If I recall rightly, Hominids also describes a mechanical lie detector. Whatever, I seem to recall Sawyer’s saying elsewhere that he was enthusiastically in favor of implementing lie-detection technology — polygraphs, if you will — universally. Whether that is his opinion now, I don’t know.

I’ve never read beyond Hominids; I found the novel an embarrassingly provincial potboiler. And what Sawyer describes is not a society but a prison. Some may think it’s a good idea, but they can go there ohne mich — without me.

So-called lie detectors can report certain things under certain conditions, but machines can make no judgments. The TV series Lie to Me delights in showing the limitations of polygraphs. But it does something else much more interesting: it continually raises the question What is a lie? Of course it may be a crass contradiction of reality at a rudimentary level; or it may be transparently twisted morality or logic. But all lies are told in contexts that only human beings can decipher and understand.

10 B. (i) As far as the two kids walking side by side and texting each other, I had no guts to ask them However, as an endemic phenomenon the matter was also mentioned in a CBC report, illustrating technology abuse. Another example was a teenager who sent 11,000 text messages in a month or a message in every 2.68 minutes of her waking hours. Is it possible to find a rational explanation for that?

We can expect that a few people will abandon common sense; must we do the same in response? Should we blame text messaging for isolated cases of pathological behavior?

What is cause and effect? At an extreme: “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” The reply is: “Yes, but why do you want to make it so easy?” Text messaging is not a deadly weapon. In the case of abuse that you cite, where does the girl herself fit in? At worst, the technology revealed a rather odd case of addiction and the need for professional help.

10. B. (ii) As far as the developing countries are concerned, they were given the opportunity to pull themselves up, but they let the opportunities pass. I certainly would not go there again and put down a well, nor would I contribute a penny to help them with their water supply. People must learn to make decisions and accept the consequences.

By the way, the earlier version of technology in this case was a well about 200 meters from the site of my well. The hand pump was similar, but it was built by the vile colonial administration. The Brits made sure nobody damaged the installation. However, following “Uhuru” came the tribal conflicts, and the well was filled up. Hence the source five miles away

I just wonder how the husbands and wives got along when they were using the British well. And as for “People must learn to make decisions and accept the consequences,” yes, of course. And that is exactly what the villagers did.

They may or may not have asked for a well in the first place; I don’t know. Assume the worst case: they did ask for one and then changed their minds later. That was their right; but as you say, they needn’t bother asking anyone for a new well again: they’ll have to dig their own.

10. B. (iii) There is no difference; pirates endangered the free, peaceful use of the waterways. Hanging every captured pirate eventually halted their activity. Aerial piracy endangers the free, peaceful use of the airways; skyjackers should be treated the same way as the pirates of the Caribbean were.

Hanging a pirate on a sailing vessel is not the same as engaging in a shoot-out aboard a commercial airliner. Of course it may come down to that. After 9/11, anyone who thinks of hijacking a passenger plane has to know he’ll be killed on the spot and that his attempt will fail. The only way to repeat the crime now is to hijack a cargo plane — with the certain expectation that it will be shot down. Or a terrorist can simply charter a plane. But preventing that calls less for gunplay than for adept counter-terrorism intelligence.

10. (iv) In fact, Israel did not bomb Gaza indiscriminately as the combatants in WW II did. In that war, the civilian causalities outnumbered the military losses. The bombing of, Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Yokohama were not carried out in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention or 1929 Paris Treaty. The war had to be won; period. Since then, neither Germany nor Japan has disturbed the peace.

Germany and Japan have renounced militarism not because they fear a nuclear holocaust —although that would be a perfectly good reason to do so — but because they lost the war. And both countries appear to have evolved socially and culturally in the last 60 years.

10 (v) Fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan is like insisting on fighting according to the Queensbury rules despite the opposition’s wearing brass knuckles and swinging a baseball bat. It is stupid. Some carpet-bombing, such as the 28th Bomber Wing carried out over Budapest, would solve most problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, the peace-mongers would be upset, but if you asked them how to solve the problems, they would be devoid of ideas.

After WW1, France constructed the Maginot Line. It would have been an excellent defense in 1914, but the French generals were “fighting the last war.” And to no avail: the German generals were fighting the next war, and they brought the Blitzkrieg.

Classical warfare is the “last war”; terrorism is the next one. And air power alone cannot win even a conventional war. Air power might, as you suggest, eradicate the civilian populations of Iraq and Afghanistan — or wherever — but to no avail: it cannot defeat clandestine forces, which will remain as dangerous as before. And in the end, the two sides in the conflict will have become morally indistinguishable.

to Bill Bowler’s reply...