The chimera of control

Control is like El Dorado: the more you talk or think about it, the more realistic it seems to be. But - like the Spaniards in South America who found gold, but not enough – expectations outstrip reality. The amount of control you actually have over your life is usually not even close to what you hoped for, or dreamed of. All over the world (and probably more in the Western World than elsewhere) we overestimate our own ability to control the world around us.

It is possible that this overestimation (which could also be seen as overconfidence, pride, or even vanity) is due at least in part to the success we have had individually, and on a small scale, in controlling the physical world around us. We can plow the earth, move and break rocks, forge metal, make tools and pottery, build houses, make plants grow where we want them to. And when we pool our resources, we can build bridges and waterworks, move mountains and rivers, drain swamps, and redistribute the available energy to suit our needs. But we are finding that all those individual efforts have a huge collective impact that we do not yet know how to control. (In that sense, we are a bit like the stromatolites (colonial reef-building organisms), who, when life was just beginning, kick-started all further life on this planet by producing oxygen. Their impact was enormous, but they had no control over what was happening. In fact, they themselves went into steep decline, because the oxygen they produced – however useful for us - was actually poisonous to them. )

The problem, of course, is that although we are relatively good at controlling certain parts of the physical world, we are not much good at predicting the long-term results of our collective actions, and even worse at controlling complex systems involving other living organisms. A few examples.

• Some 70% or more of business projects fail, because of systemic problems that are almost impossible to control (see the theories of Demming for more on this).
• For years, hunting foxes was justified by claiming that it was necessary to keep the population of predators in certain areas low. In fact, it has now been shown that hunting has no noticeable impact on the total number of foxes, because the survivors simply have larger litters.
• Ever since the invention of antibiotics, people hoped that it would be possible to completely eradicate certain (or maybe even all) infectious diseases. So far … (need I spell it out?).
• President Obama, possibly the most powerful president of any democratic country, had perfectly reasonable plans for the future of his country, but is finding it almost impossible to turn them into reality.
• The Unites States foreign policy of the past 40-50 years seems based on the belief that it is possible to exact real change in other countries by the use of force, in spite of a long list of examples to the contrary.
• The Western World is only slowly beginning to realize that a lot of “well-intentioned aid” to the third world is not having the effect they hoped (I put well-intentioned in brackets, because often, the cost of “progress” – in terms of loss of cultural values etc. - may be more than the beneficiaries want to pay).
• Governments have been trying to control the economy ever since money was invented, but recent events have made it very clear how elusive and fickle economies are. (Which is not to say that I advocate a totally "free" marketplace - that is probably worse).  

I have in fact arrived at the conclusion that the only things that I personally have any control over (and this only if I am willing to dedicate a lot of time and energy to them) is my garden, what I write (not even what I say!), and (again to a very limited degree, and only as regards certain aspects) the behavior of my children. Which is a good description of how I see retirement: me and my wife in our garden, writing, and hopefully visited by our children from time to time.

Looking out for Number One

Just finished reading Barack Obama's book on Life, the Universe and Everything (the real title is "The Audacity of Hope", of course, but with chapters called "values", "race", "faith", "politics" and "family", among many others, a wink to Douglas Adams is not out of place), and I have to say I am pleasantly impressed. He really seems to have thought things through. There is just one thing that gets my hackles up. It is not even a criticism; it is more a question of picking up where the book leaves off, and of giving the perspective from the outside.

My concern is the assumption, implicit in some of the wordings in the chapter on "The World Beyond Our Borders", among others, that the rest of the world poses a threat to the livelihood and security of U.S. citizens. This bothers me because it indicates the extent to which fear plays a part in determining U.S. policy (foreign and internal). Even for its allies or friends, the idea that this economic and military giant is not always able to control its own knee-jerk reactions is quite scary.

Having spent an important part of my childhood in the U.S., I am quite familiar with this fear. In my case, it was the the generalised and unchallenged belief that an "evil empire" (usually the Soviet Union and/or China) was out to attack and subdue the "free world" (the U.S. and its western allies). All around me, there were all kinds of different expressions of this fear, either explicit (spy novels), slightly veiled metaphors (most science fiction series and movies), or implicit (the things left unsaid). And the response (the nuclear arms race), though understandable, did not make much sense in the longer run. Now, of course, the main source of fear - international terrorism - is different, but the kind of response it engenders is similar in that it is again assumed that (1) military action and repression is the best (or possibly even only) way to "win the war" and (2) the U.S. must do something about it, or at very least lead the way.

As for the first assumption, I think the spectacular failure to "win the war" on drugs is evidence enough. The problem of drugs, and of terrorism, is complex, and cannot be solved by ouside force alone. But U.S. policy seems rife with overly simplistic beliefs and short-term solutions (presumably again because of fear and/or because it is much easier to sell a quick, simple "solution" than admit that a long-term committment is necessary). Most issues are not just black and white, good or bad, and there is a middle road between isolationist or interventionist.
As for the second point: of course it is difficult to "just stand by" when things around you are going wrong, even if you do not perceive these changes as threats. But just as a parent's failure to intervene may in certain cases in the long run be better for his or her children (see this entry), intervention is not always necessary or useful. In some cases, intervention may provide short-term solutions, but trying to "make the world safe for democracy" by force is a bit like a parent yelling at his children to stop yelling. It might work for a while, but the underlying message is that yelling is an acceptable and useful way to get what you want.

I am sure the above parent/child analogy could ruffle the feathers of lots of people across the globe, because (like me) they see the U.S. as a younger (though larger and stronger sibling), and not as a parent. And as such, there is always the issue of whether or not that sibling has the right to stick its nose into the internal affairs of other countries. I would say they do not. However much I can sympathise with the need to "look out for number one", I draw the line at pre-emptive strikes. I think that in most cases, we would all benefit if the U.S. were to apply the simple rule to "do unto others as they would have others do unto you".

There is of course much, much more to be said on this, but it will have to wait: my children need me.