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.

Everybody's a doctor

One of the advantages of a cross-cultural marriage and/or moving around a lot is that if gives you the chance to put your own culture into perspective. The basic attitude of people in the Netherlands (my country of birth) regarding health issues - from how to give birth, to when to use of over-the-counter drugs for headaches and the flu - is non-interventionist. I had never really given this much thought, however, until I started going to Spain (my wife's home base) regularly, where attitudes are at the other end of the spectrum, their view being that you should medicate as soon as you have the slightest symptom of anything. In the beginning, I suspected that Spaniards had difficulty distinguishing medicine from candy, that's how bad things seemed to me. 

But then I found out that the average level of knowledge of medical issues is indeed higher than in the Netherlands.  Truck drivers, secretaries, housewives and waiters alike have a much more extensive knowledge of the human anatomy and of the symptoms and treatments of common ailments such as arthritis, gout, the flu, etc. I am not sure which is cause and which is effect, but Spaniards are also perfectly happy to disagree with their doctor's diagnosis and the prescribed treatment. They have no compunction whatsoever in experimenting with medication, with or without help from their pharmacist, who is not free of this cavalier attitude. Everyone gleefully varies dosages, combines drugs and even - and here is where I draw the line - diagnose other people's ailments, and insist in treating them, using their own prescription drugs (which may or may not still be within their "best by" date). In Spain, everybody's a doctor. But interestingly enough, although average use of medicines is much higher in Spain than in the Netherlands, I have not heard of any significant differences in the rates of problems related to the use of medicines.  

So where does that leave my non-interventionist attitude? Well, it helped me come to the conclusions that (1) it is probably a good idea to know you own body, and have patients be more actively involved in the process of getting better. In that sense, Spaniards are way ahead of the Dutch. (2) It may not be necessary to stick so very strictly to dosage indicators (but personally, I am not taking any chances) and (3) Over-the counter medicines should only be used to combat symptoms if these symptoms stand in the way of getting better, as a way to break through vicious circles. If however the symptoms are your body's way to tell you to slow down, you should listen.

The above has also prompted me to rethink our attitudes towards illness and the job. At the moment, to many people, it still seems like a matter of honor to continue working, even though you are sick, even though we know that this may only prolong the illness, and possibly lower our productivity. More importantly, if the illness is contagious, there is a good chance of lowering the productivity of our colleagues as well. But for the species as a whole, exposure to infectious diseases is not a bad thing, as long as the strains are not so virulent as to wipe out the whole human race. Of course I realize that future of mankind means doodly squat to someone who risks losing their own life, or that of loved ones, and I fully understand the Mexican government's decision to impose a stay-at-home period, as a way of combating the swine flu. But the jury is still out on the decision to keep with a mild flu at home (such as was the case with my children this week), to avoid them contaminating/infecting others. It reminds me of the obsession with cleanliness: for a long time, people did their utmost to avoid all bacteria and virusses, and to do the same for their children. Now, the pendulum has swung back a bit: people are less worried, and realise that a limited amount of contact is nature's way of giving vaccinations.