Tsunami: Geopolitical Implications

As the full scope of the disaster from the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean unfolds, I can't help but wonder what additional impacts of this event are not being discussed. News agencies around the world are just now coming to grips with the scope of this tragedy--one which they have been consistently underestimating. The latest figures of 80,000 (from www.cnn.com) deaths will probably change before noon. I have been struck by this underestimation if only because it seems so obviously apparent that the death toll will rise: until this morning I had head nothing reported about deaths on the Andaman and Nicobar islands... and now the first reports are streaming in that at least 10,000 people are missing on a single island in the Andamans. The death toll in this archipelago alone could top 100,000. And when will we hear from Myanmar? It will take longer for news to trickle in from this military dictatorship, but it will not likely be positive when it does finally arrive. There are hundreds of thousands of "sea-gypsies" that lived in floating villages among the Mergui archipelago alone--will we ever hear of the impact on such marginalized (and largely unrecorded) populations??

The inability of the news media to cope with this disaster raises several questions, none of which are being adequately addressed at present:

1. How will this disaster affect the Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka? The worst-hit regions are Tamil territory. Will aid to the Sri Lankan government reach the Tamils? Will this incite new conflict? How did the tsunami impact the effectiveness of landmines in the border-areas (the second most heavily mined region in the world, after the Korean DMZ)?

2. How will this disaster affect the Acheh insurgency (ground zero for the tsunami) in Indonesia? Will the tragedy short-circuit the insurgency in favor of national unity following Yudhoyono's leadership under crisis? Will the government's inability to prevent starvation and disease further fracture an already fragmented nation, emboldening countless Islamic and ethnic splinter-groups?

3. To what extent will the devastated populations blame the US for lack of warning, followed by paltry aid donations? Following comments that US donations were "stingy", America upped its aid pledge to $35 million... approximately what is spent ever 3 and a half hours in Iraq. How will this missed opportunity to at least pretend to care about the fate of the third world affect the "Global War on Terror"??

4. Finally, as this crisis grips the world over the course of the next month, what actions will go unnoticed in the runup to the January 30th Iraq elections?

Pax Americana?

The golden age of the Roman Empire is often called the Pax Romana... it ended with the death of the last of the "5 Good Emperors", Marcus Aurelius, in 180 C.E. It was characterized by a lasting peace within the Roman Empire -- but a peace that was maintained only by nearly continuous warfare at the periphery.

While it is often said that history repeats itself, these cycles are not exact reproductions of the past, but rather take the form of chaotic self-similarity across scale owing to common causal mechanisms. During the Pax Romana, Rome was under increasing pressure on its borders from "barbarians". Nearly 100 years ago, Nietzsche asked "Where are the barbarians?". I think that he would consider his question answered if he were alive today. Are we now at the dawn of a Pax Americana--a lasting period of domestic peace sustained only by warfare on the periphery? Or are we at the close of that era (the Post-WWII golden age of America)?? Perhaps this quote provides the best summary, as it seems to fit well into history's self-similarity across time:

"Although things did seem to be getting better, there were problems on the horizon. Barbarian pressures were mounting. There was a considerable decline in the slave population and the army was no longer large enough to maintain the frontier."

Taken from Steven Kries' "Lectures on Ancient and Medieval European History" , it describes the state of Rome at the death of Marcus Aurelius.

On a loosely related note, if you haven't already read Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome", I highly recommend it for its insight and timely nature.

DoD Propaganda Machine In Full Force

The latest issue of the magazine The American Enterprise (January/February 2005) printed a Letter to the Editor, ostensibly written by First Lieutenant Michael Erwin of the US Army (article link HERE). It reads like a run-down of Pentagon talking points carefully compiled by Army Public Affairs. In the letter, PA -- or, rather Lt. Erwin -- explains how great a victory the recent assaults on Najaf and Falluja were for the American people, and how despicable and evil the Iraqi insurgents are. Allow me to quote from this letter, and illustrate the bald-faced deceptions employed by the Pentagon PR machine. Hopefully Lt. Erwin won't take my commentary too personally--after all, he can point the finger at his friendly local Public Affairs officer:

American Enterprise intros the letter with a little commentary on the recent operations in Najaf and Falluja that Lt. Erwin participated in: "two of the trickiest and most successful combat actions carried out by the US military in the last half century". Given AE's standard bias on these matters, I'm not surprised by their assessment, or that they picked this letter for publication despite the fact that it clearly follows a list of talking points and key-phrases. Never-the-less, I would be remiss to allow such an assumption to pass unchallenged. The operation in Najaf was only finally settled when Hussein Sharistani brokered a deal by convincing al-Sadr that the Shi'a would dominate the country if he would back down and facilitate January's elections. Due to the US military's inability to handle the issue directly (because there were no adequately trained Iraqi forces to deal with Najaf), they gave Sharistani (and Sistani) the keys to the country. In the process, they created a future of Iranian influenced Iraqi policies in one fell swoop. Falluja was equally a failure, as it outraged Iraq's Sunni population and failed to crush any leadership or command structure of the insurgency--witness that attacks have picked up since the city was declared "under control" of the Marine Corps.

AE's editors also suggest that Erwin's letter sheds light on the "previously unreported revelation that Muslim holy warriors traffic in illicit drugs". Here are Lt. Erwin's actual words: "They also found large amounts of drugs--mostly speed and cocaine. Many of these jihad purists apparently drug themselves up for pleasure and to give themselves the boldness and stupidity to fight". Ignoring, for a moment, the unsupported assumptions on Erwin's part, let me point out that Lt. Erwin knows exactly why the insurgents take cocaine (a stimulant) and speed: to enhance combat alertness and performance over the many days that they must stay awake at one time. Not coincidentally, this is the exact same rationale that the US military gives for issuing "Go-Pills" to their soldiers. "Go-Pills" are actually Dexadrine. Dexadrine is the brand name for dexamphetamine, which is speed.

Erwin goes on to complain that "They [insurgents] placed snipers, mortar observers, and men armed with RPGs in the minarets of their mosques." According the US military, and the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which they created and unilaterally decided to apply to the insurgents, this is not kosher. Erwin also states that the US military destroyed "any vehicle that had been parked in the same location for more than three days. We guessed they might be car bombs..." Having been through countless hours of LOAC training myself, I am well aware that both of these actions, one by the insurgents and one by the US military, violate the law. In my mind, both are smart moves--the hypocrisy lies in the fact that Erwin points out only the enemy's violations. Not to mention the general hypocrisy of attempting to apply one's own laws to another party which has not agreed to the former's social contract, a phenomena that I wrote about HERE.

Erwin continues with a statement demonstrating such ignorance that I am forced to either re-evaluate my esteem for his West Point education, or chalk it under the column of "Public Affairs actually wrote this letter":

"This city [Falluja] was the center of the resistance against the new Iraqi government."

The insurgents form an acentral, rhizomatic network. US military and CIA intelligence briefings both say this. Erwin apparently doesn't understand that a decentralized network doesn't have a center. Visit: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ for a lengthy discussion of this by a former military specialist in insurgent organization.

Next on Erwin's talking-points memo was this: "Some of the torture chambers were extremely gruesome. These insurgents are sick people." I wonder what kind of generalizations Erwin would be willing to make about all members of the US Army (of which he is part) given the abuses at Abu Ghraib??

As if he were trying to trip over every single ghost in the US military's closet one at a time, Erwin proceeds to begin arguing the merits of the Falluja operation based on body counts: "Over several days, American forces killed 1,200-1,600 insurgents." Someone should let this guy know how well Vietnam turned out for the US...

But the real icing on the cake came in Erwin's closing comments: "I see firsthand in Iraq that we cannot live peacefully back home right now unless we stay on the offensive against our enemies in their own backyards." Hubris, it seems, has no bounds. If I may humbly suggest that if we stopped killing, manipulating and exploiting people in far away lands, we may find ourselves finally at peace both at home and abroad. That seems a fitting comment on which to close these Christmas Eve comments...

Hierarchy Hangover

Hierarchy creates great empires, large corporations, huge displays of its capability to command coordinated action. Hierarchy, however, is also an inefficient mode of organization. It depends on surplus energy. As small-scale hierarchies emerged at the dawn of written history, this surplus energy was obtained from hydraulic projects (irrigation systems), harnessing animal energy, cutting down the forests of Europe for firewood or developing new technologies like crop rotation to better free the energy of rich soils. Surplus energy is measured as a ratio of calories made available per calorie of human energy expended. Return:Investment. The higher the ratio, the more hierarchal the resulting government. The Nile provided a great surplus energy, and resulted in the hierarchal systems of the Egyptian pharoes. Constant warfare brought a constant source of slaves to the Roman empire to fuel the surplus from its great North African wheat plantations (latifundia). Coal and colonies provided the surplus energy for the rise of the British Empire. Today's hierarchies are are in turn dependent on the greatest source of surplus energy ever to be tapped by human civilization: oil. Oil produces more available calories of energy per calorie of human input than any other energy source available. It is, quite literally, the most concentrated form of solar energy available on the planet. The result of this great energy surplus has been great hierarchy: the empires and wars of the last hundred years have been defined by this phenomena.

What will happen when this source of surplus runs out? It may take 5 years or 100 years, but there is no doubt that this great surplus is draining away. Optimists (perhaps an inappropriate title) always state that we will surely find another--perhaps even greater--source of energy surplus. The facts belie the rhetoric, however: Hydrogen needs surplus energy to be produced. Oil shale provides a far smaller surplus ratio than the Gahwar fields of Saudi Arabia. Nuclear energy has never provided a surplus ratio without the subsidy of the military-industrial complex. There simply is no replacement for the surplus energy of oil.

As this surplus fades away, the era of hierarchy will slowly--if fitfully--fade with it. It not be likely to go quietly into that good night--as we may already be witnessing in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia today. Only societies and economies not dependent on this surplus ratio will survive--societies that are capable of existing on just the real-time solar energy hitting the earth. Such energy patterns will demand a rhizome mode of organization. The greatest question is: can we demonstrate the foresight to utilize some of our surplus now to lay the foundation for a zero-surplus society in the future? Or will we squander our fast-dwindling resources in an attempt to hold on in the face of inevitable change, only to lose our one chance at setting up a sustainable but advanced society? Many peak oil theorists think that our planet--that every planet--only gets one shot at setting up a sustainable society before their resources run out, and that if they miss, then they will fade into the obscurity of nature from which they came. Perhaps that won't be such a bad thing, but it strikes me that a middle ground--a sustainable, ontogenetically compatible, interconnected and informed society--may be possible. I think that is something to shoot for.

Hierarchy and Central Planning

It seems rather odd that, for all of its expressed disdain for centrally planned economies, capitalism is founded on the pattern of hierarchy -- itself an example of central planning.

Hierarchy is most simple defined as a pattern where one or more entities are being operationally controlled by a ruling (arkos) entity. It is, at its very core, a pattern of central planning and control. Traditional economics has long dealt with this apparent inconsistency of doctrine by stating that economic organization, below a certain level, is called a "firm"-- and is treated as a monolithic entity, thereby obscuring its centrally planned nature. Above the level of the firm "free-market" forces are presumed to be at work which facilitate the use of price to efficiently manage the masses of information in the market... and the sermon goes on. Let's take a look at these two separate economic levels--the "Firm", and the "Firm-Complex"--and see what is really going on:

The firm is a purely centrally-planned economic entity. At a certain size--a single employee, or a half dozen workers skillfully led--the firm represents the efficiencies of central planning at a small scale. Hierarchy--or central planning--creates initial efficiencies through central command and control, stratification, specialization, etc. However, it does not need to grow much beyond a handful of employees before the burden of information processing placed on the central planner (boss) exceeds that individual's capacity to efficiently process information. At larger sizes, more and more of the resources of a firm must be allocated to deal with this ballooning information-processing burden. And no amount of resources allocated to information-processing and analysis can make the firm process information perfectly. Just as US economists criticized the Soviet economic planners for their inability to replace the price mechanism, large firms cannot adequately cope with their own information processing burdens. Today, with the increasing horizontal and vertical integration of multi-national corporations, this information burden (and the resulting inefficiencies) is even approaching the scale of the problem that faced Soviet economists.

Beyond the firm, in the "free market", individual firms repeatedly and successfully lobby government (itself a centrally-planned "firm") to exert centrally-planned influences on the economy. Defense contractors lobby for contracts--this is pure central planning, as the Joint Chiefs of Staff certainly don't represent a true picture of "market" demand. All forms of political pork--all political spending and economic regulation, period--represent central planning of the economy above the level of the firm.

So... our "free market" economy is really anything but. Any economy that is based on the pattern of hierarchy will always be centrally planned. It may have multiple centers, even competing centers, but this very centralized nature will incur all of the inefficiencies of central planning.

The real difference between the central planning of the US economy, and the central planning of the Soviet economy is that--at least in theory--the US centrally plans for the concentration of wealth and the Soviet economy centrally plans for the distribution of wealth. Both do so rather inefficiently, due to central planning, and due to the fact that there remain (or in the case of the USSR, remained) conflicting voices within their own planning structure. But because both systems opted for the use of the pattern of hierarchy as their fundamental organizational mode, both systems are clear-cut cases of central planning and its related inefficiencies.

Is there any hope to escape from the inefficiencies of central planning, from the exploitation, reduction in freedoms and inequality that always accompany it? In my opinion, if hierarchy is at the root of the problem, then the answer will lie in the opposite mode of organization: rhizome. Only an economy grounded upon countless, independent but interconnected nodes can exist without succumbing to hierarchy. Many people have asked me: what kind of solution to these problems do you envision?? What would that economy look like? I have tried to create a solution to our problems that is scale-free and implementable immediately. I will begin a series of posts shortly to explore exactly that question:

What will the society of Netopia look like?

Stay tuned to find out...

Mortar Attacks in Mosul: Psychological Significance

At noon on 21 December, multiple rounds exploded in the dining hall of a US Army base near Mosul, Iraq. The source of the attack is still unclear. The most likely candidates are mortars or rockets, but the reporting of multiple rounds striking the dining hall suggest an accuracy and cluster of impacts that would most likely be the result of a mortar attack. The Pentagon has reported 22 killed and over 60 injured in the attack. This attack is highly significant for two reasons.

1. This is the first major success by insurgents to attack the soft center of US bases with indirect fire. Since the first American bases were established in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have been subjected to regular mortar and rocket attacks. The vast majority of these have been wildly inaccurate and ineffective. Prior to deployments to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan and Tallil Air Base, Iraq, I briefed units to expect infrequent mortar or rocket attacks, but that these attackers had demonstrated their inability "to hit the broad side of a barn", and that they posed little risk. But this latest attack demonstrates a new level of proficiency on a number of fronts.

Accuracy: The majority of previous mortar and rocket attacks were "accurate" if they landed within the perimeter of the base, with an average CEP (circular error probability) of over a quarter of a mile. This attack demonstrated a CEP of 50' or so -- quite respectable.

Targeting: The timing of the attack -- 12 noon -- suggests that the impact in the dining hall was intentional. Not only does this suggest that the accuracy of the attack was not a fluke, but it also demonstrates that insurgents have sufficient intelligence about the internal layout of the base to know the location of the dining hall, and that they have the insight to select such an effective target, both militarily and psychologically. Which brings me to the next reason why this attack was so significant: psychology

2. The psychological impact of this attack will have the most lasting effects. Previously, despite the theoretical threat while inside a US base, soldiers could relax both mentally and physically while inside the walls of the larger, better fortified bases. Now, with the effectiveness of this latest attack, there is no psychological safe haven for US forces. Especially if insurgents can continue this type of successful attack, it will sharply undercut the psychological well-being of US forces. The Pentagon is already reporting that 17% of returning forces demonstrate symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (which is startling, because onset normally takes months or longer). This type of psychological trauma will have a two-fold impact: Forces in Iraq will be more likely to act in a rash, irrational and reactionary manner. That means that the type of incidents that inflame the situation (prison abuse, civilian casualties, etc.) will become more frequent. Secondly, this lead to an increased spike in extremist and militia-type activity within the US in the coming years.

Following the first Gulf War, returning soldiers dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and "Gulf War Syndrome" (probably a result of aerosolized depleted-uranium, which will also be worse after this conflict) became a ready-made recruiting pool for extremist, anti-government and far-right militia groups. The Oklahoma City bombing was a direct result of this process, as well as the general spike in militia activity in the mid 1990's. All indicators suggest that the US will experience the same type of aftermath to this latest conflict. This time, however, with longer deployments, more personnel involved, more casualties, longer-term depleted-uranium exposure and--as this latest attack underscores--more psychological trauma, the symptoms promise to be far worse.

Many unanswered questions remain. Over the next few weeks, look for the following: will insurgents be able to continue this type of successful indirect-fire attack? Will the US counter-battery radars and response forces succeed in dealing with the attackers? Will the US take the logical countermeasures (as I recommended to the commander of the US base at Doha International Airport in 2003) of distributing dining hall facilities and other large congregations of personnel? Will the US military be foreced to change their fundamental operational methodology of lighting raids from highly secure compounds??

"Open Source Warfare" vs. "Arcane Use for Power"

SETEC ASTRONOMY aside, there really are TOO MANY SECRETS. But enough with the anagrams…

Question: Has information secrecy, and the concept of secrets in general, outlived its usefulness?

I’ll go ahead and give a bold answer, and then try to support it: secrecy is an inefficient and outmoded symptom of hierarchy. While this theory has many adherents in the intellectual property and computer programming worlds, it is nearly universally rejected in the areas of foreign policy, security and warfare. Why?

First, let’s take a look at the mechanics of secrecy. Secrecy is based on constraining information access to select nodes in an organizational structure, which in turn creates new chains of information flow (see Diagram 1). Sometimes, due to the associated need to ensure secure transmission of secrets, additional communication links must be established between two nodes with access to a secret: one for non-secret communication, and another for secret communication. This burdens the communications structure of an organization. When our subject is a hierarchal structure, the extra burden imposed by secrecy further compounds the primary weakness of the organizational structure: the energy allocated to information processing. As R. A. Wilson has demonstrated, at some point in its growth, the information processing burden of a hierarchal structure exceeds the other efficiency gains of hierarchy. The demands of secrecy quickly mushroom (DoD has more than 6 levels of information classification transmitted over more than 4 separate and non-interacting networks), creating an extremely inefficient system.

Is this inherent inefficiency a cost worth paying for protecting critical secrets? That is the conventional wisdom, but I am proposing that there are two main reasons why secrets are not worth the cost of protecting them: the OODA loop and Economic Game Theory.

OODA loop

Air Force Colonel John Boyd developed the OODA loop model: Observation – Orientation – Decision – Action. It models how military forces (and almost anyone else) process information. An organization’s information processing capabilities are committed to observing a situation, orienting themselves and their goals to the observed situation, making a decision on how to act in order to best realize their goals given the situation, and then taking that action. Every step in the OODA loop is dependent on the information processing capability of an organization, and involving secrecy in the process slows the realization of action based on a given observation. The time that information remains in the loop before it is acted upon is critical: action is never based upon a current observation of a situation, but rather is based upon an observation of how a situation was at the time that the observation was made and the OODA loop process was initiated. While secrecy of information may prevent decisions and actions from getting into the hands of the enemy, it also results in taking action on increasingly outdated information. In contrast, the absence of secrecy of information, or open source warfare, facilitates a much faster OODA loop process, which grounds decisions and actions in much more current information. An enemy can only take advantage of available information if their OODA loop operates quickly enough to observe the available information, orient their goals to it, make a decision and take action inside the time frame of their opponent’s OODA loop. This is the fundamental information battleground: getting inside your opponent’s OODA loop. Secrecy or availability of information is irrelevant if your loop is quicker than your opponent’s, and secrecy only serves to slow down your loop!

Economic Game Theory

The second reason why secrets are not worth the cost of protecting them draws on economic game theory. Specifically, I will use the prisoner’s dilemma model. Conventional wisdom suggests that one should guard information about plans to exploit, harm or take advantage of another party, as the other party may react negatively if they learn of this information. First, I should point out that if Party A’s OODA loop operates more quickly than the OODA loop of Party B, it won’t matter if Party B finds out Party A’s nefarious intentions – it will be too late. But, more controversially, I will suggest that it is always in Party A’s best interest not to adopt plans to exploit, harm or take advantage of Party B in the first place. The Prisoner’s Dilemma will explain why:

For those not familiar, the prisoner’s dilemma is based on the following scenario: two thieves, X and Y, are arrested for collaborating on a robbery, and are held in separate cells for interrogation. If neither X nor Y confess and rat on the other, then neither serves jail time. If X confesses and rats on Y, but Y refuses to confess and give up X, then X gets a reduced sentence and Y goes to jail for a long time (and vice versa). If both X and Y independently confess and rat on the other, then both go to jail for an intermediate period. So, if you are X, and don’t know what Y will do, what action do you take?

If this process only plays out a single time (as with criminals), then it is difficult to reach an optimal conclusion: you don’t know what Y will do. But if this process plays out over and over again with the same actors (as in international relations, trade sanctions, etc.), then both parties can make calculations based on their counterparts previous actions. If the cycle is stuck in a process of reciprocal retaliation (both X and Y ratting on the other out of mistrust), then X has the option of making a conciliatory gesture—not confessing and ratting out Y. While X may suffer increased consequences in the short term, in the long run Y will realize that by working with X and not ratting each other out, they can both enjoy greatly increased benefits. Likewise, by not adopting plans to exploit, harm or take advantage of one’s counterparts, in the long run trust will build and parties can engage in mutually beneficial actions: free trade, information sharing, reduced protective and defensive expenditures, etc.

And here’s the kicker: the most efficient way to get other players to enter into cooperative, mutually beneficial endeavors with you is to adopt a comprehensive policy of no secrets. If you don’t have secrets, if you don’t have the capability to process information secretly, then trust builds very quickly that you do not have a secret motivation behind your friendly gesture.

Bottom line: information secrecy is not worth the cost. Faster OODA-loop processes prevent a potential adversary from exploiting your open information, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma demonstrates that your openness will increase interaction efficiency for all parties, over time.

Adapting the Exploitation Model: Does the US have NO plan, or a NEW plan?

What are the Bush administration’s plans in Iraq? On the surface, everything is going badly. The Jan 30th elections are destined to fail, and there are huge structural obstacles to overcome before Iraq can become a stable, peaceful nation. On top of that, the Iraq situation is so closely intermingled with two neighboring crises, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, that it will be exceptionally more difficult to deal with any single problem in isolation. Does the Bush administration have a plan to deal with this web of problems? Are they just blazing ahead with a plan that they know won’t work for lack of any viable alternatives? Or… are they pioneering an entirely new strategy in international relations: Intentional Instability? In order to answer that, I must first lay a foundation:

The Exploitation Model of colonial control, and the legacy of British cartography: England is a small country, with a relatively small population. They were never able to field the kind of imperial expeditionary forces of other empires. Instead, from the very beginnings in India, they pioneered a new means of controlling colonies: exploit internal divisions. I call this the “Exploitation Model”, and it has been used with great success, first by Britain, then by the US in all corners of the globe. It started in India, where the British recognized that they could not field a force large enough to control the hugely populous and well armed people of the subcontinent. They recognized, however, that India was rife with internal divisions, fractured into a complex web of princes and potentates each with long-running internal disputes. They learned that by leveraging their forces in the support of one local group against another, they could greatly multiply their power, and effectively control a nation several times larger than their own. It was in India that they laid the groundwork for the Exploitation Model: leverage a minority group with the promise of “If you help make us rich, we’ll see to it that you also get a disproportionate share of the wealth”, and ensure loyalty by withholding access to some critical part of the machinery of power – make them rely on you just as much as you rely on them.

This model was used by the British to establish and control their empire: from the apartheid exploitation model used in colonial Africa to the tribal exploitation model used to establish the House of Saud, as well as control the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

With rise in expectations for independence and self-determination beginning in the 20th century, Britain had to adapt their model to the changing geo-political arena. They had to permit the appearance of independence to their colonies, while maintaining the flow of wealth and resources on which they depended. The Exploitation Model adapted quite well to this end: if a minority group depends on your support to control an “independent” country, then you can exert the exact same level of influence on this “sovereign” nation as you can over a colony – perhaps more, because you are no longer as culpable in matters of starvation, poverty and human rights. In addition to adapting the exploitation model to the changing world stage, the British carefully used their monopoly over cartography to ensure that these newly independent entities were cut up into chunks that would perpetuate ethnic strife and provide a ready pool of minority groups bidding for British support to their power with offers of enhancing British influence over the nations affairs.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both excellent examples of the success of the British Exploitation Model in the 20th century, as well as Britain’s passing of the torch to the United States. However, no nation in the world better exemplifies this process more than Iraq.

The British first gained control of what is now Iraq after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The value of controlling Iraq’s oil wealth was not lost on the British, even during the war, as the secretary of the War Cabinet, advised Foreign Secretary Arthur Belfour in writing that control of Persian and Mesopotamian oil was a “first-class British war aim.” The territories gained from the Ottomans were quickly divided up by British cartographers into units more compatible with the exploitation model: Kuwait was parceled off from Mesopotamia (later to be renamed Iraq) in an action quite reminiscent of Gerrymandering, ensuring that the Shi’ite majority in Iraq could be effectively managed by the British-supported Sunni minority, and that the British could in-turn exploit internal Shi’ite divisions in Kuwait.

From this point, up until 1990, the US and Britain effectively used the Exploitation Model to control Iraq through support to the Sunni minority. This raises the question: what is the US doing to control Iraq at present? The January 3oth elections scheduled to create a new Iraqi government seem, on the surface, to violate every tenet of the Exploitation Model: the 60% Shi’ite majority will clearly win control of the government, they have very close ties to Iran, and will essentially exclude the US from significant control in the affairs—especially the economic affairs—of Iraq. In fact, the new Iranian/Iraqi Shi’ite position will assist Iran’s power play in the region, also at the expense of US influence. So does the US have a plan? Or are they stuck between a rock (Shi’ite Control, Shi’ite/Sunni civil war) and a hard place (Fixing the election and inciting Shi’ite/Iranian violence), and are simply pressing ahead with the better of two very bad positions? Is it time for the Exploitation Model to take another evolutionary leap… is there some entirely new US strategy afoot?

What I am proposing is the possibility that the US is intentionally pressing ahead with an entirely new model, what I am calling the Intentional Instability Model. The impetus for this development is the understanding that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate significantly no matter what happens on January 31st (it will likely be accelerated by the election), and that it is critical to US economic health to stabilize the interrelated crises in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia simultaneously.

There are some pretty simple issues that underlie this problem. The US economy is dependent on the regular supply of petroleum from the Middle East. The US economy is dependent on the continued use of the petrodollar (dollar denomination of petroleum sales) standard. The US has the most powerful and projectable military force in the world, and will maintain this advantage for the next 10+ years. The Intentional Instability Model is based on the principle that fostering, not resolving instability in a region is the most effective way to ensure acceptance of the use of dominant military force to exert influence. Intentional Instability creates the kind of permanent-crisis mentality first suggested by George Orwell’s continuous state of “war” in his book “1984”. Intentional Instability facilitates the kind of Keynesian stimulus favored by the power elite: defense spending and economic subsidies that concentrate power in the hands of the few. Intentional Instability in the region will provide the context to support the House of Saud when that crisis matures into a full-blown insurgency. Intentional Instability provides a context to contain Iranian ambitions – especially those of establishing an Iranian/PetroEuro alternative to the Saudi/PetroDollar standard upon which the entire US economy hangs. The January 3oth elections will create a civil war in Iraq along Sunni vs. Shi’ite lines, and will ensure the US presence in the region for decades. In classic Exploitation Model manner, the US military will continue to leverage local fighters and governments against each other, attempting to reserve its military power behind protective barriers to launch lightning-quick strikes against carefully planned targets. In my estimation, the Intentional Instability Model will work, and it will work well. That is, until adversaries learn the tactics of net-war, understand how to amplify the effects of their attacks by targeting critical nodes, and realize the fundamental weaknesses of hierarchy. But that could take years, and in the mean time, the situation in the Middle East will take only one path: increasing instability. The most important question, in my mind: is this the result of a new, intentional US strategy, or is it simply incompetence on the part of American foreign policy.

Messina 2005

Update: The Mediterranean Studies Association (ASU, KU, UMass affiliated) has accepted my paper, "All Roads Lead to Rome: Processes of Hierarchy, Subsidy and Control in the Evolution of Empire" for presentation at their 8th annual conference in Messina, Italy.

Corporate Interest & Bhopal

It's been a few days since the 20th anniversary of Bhopal, and I think that it's worth taking a moment to look at "corporate responsibility".

In summary, in 1984 a large quantity of a still unknown poison gas was released from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. 20,000 people died from exposure, and 150,000+ more are disabled for life, requiring ongoing medical care. Union Carbide reached a negotiated settlement with the Indian Government for some $470 million ($23,500 per death), of which only one quarter has been paid to victims. Most Indians received only $300 - $500 each for life-long injuries--a payment that covers less than one year of medical treatment. Union Carbide has to this day not decontaminated the Bhopal site, resulting in ongoing contamination from groundwater and latent exposure. Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson has been charged with manslaughter by the Indian government, but refuses to appear before an Indian court, and the US government refuses to extradite him.

Here is an excellent site with information on Bhopal:
http://www.bhopal.org/whathappened.html

In 2001, Dow Chemical purchased Union Carbide, with full understanding of the history of the company. Is anyone surprised that neither Dow Chemical or Union Carbide before them has refused to properly compensate and clean up Bhopal? Racism (In the words of a Union Carbide spokesman, "$500 is plenty good for an Indian") has certainly played a role, but it is the fundamental design of the corporate structure that has driven the actions of both Dow and Union Carbide. Recent events make this very explicit:

Just last week, in a live interview on BBC news, a Yes-Man member representing himself as a Dow Chemical spokesman Jude Finisterra ("Jude", patron saint of lost causes and "Finisterra", end of the earth) made a public apology for Dow's actions since assuming control of Union Carbide, and laid out a $12 billion plan to make right the situation. It took less than 2 hours for the farce to unravel and for BBC to issue a retraction, but in that time Dow Chemical stock lost 4.2% of its value.

I have often heard companies like Dow say that they "are dedicated to serving our customers", or that they "understand their responsibility to...". Unfortunately, the truth rarely comes out: Corporations are by their very nature dedicated and responsible to only one goal: increasing stock value to shareholders. The shareholder reaction to the false Dow announcement makes this very clear: they don't care if Dow does the right thing. They don't own shares in Dow for it to do the right thing. They own shares in Dow to make money. Period. Any claims of corporate responsibility extending beyond that simple goal are pure fantasy.

The corporation is a non-sentient structure. It doesn't fell good or bad about what it does. Even its human officers aren't really concerned with good or bad. By the very structural nature of the corporation, the humans behind the corporate front are only responsible for pleasing the shareholders. If responsibility for moral or just action exists at all, it lies squarely on the shoulders of the shareholder. Shareholders make their desires very clear indeed: they must choose between money and morality--the corporation cannot by its very structure make that decision for them.

The primary problem with regulating corporate action through a shareholder sense of morality is the very size of large corporations. Small corporations, with only a handful of shareholders (i.e. not publicly traded), can be effectively regulated by shareholder morality. But when there are thousands and thousands of shareholders with little personal affiliation or association with the corporation, it becomes very easy to think that "I don't even own 1/10 of 1%", or "It's just something that my mutual fund owns". From the standpoint of societal good, this is the core of the problem with the corporate structure: responsibility for the action of a corporation is diffused so thin among vast seas of shareholders that very, very few will choose to obey their sense of morality over their drive for profit.

The corporation is a structure that, like a virus, is very nearly alive. It has its own free will, a will that is every bit as much determined by its ontogeny as that of a human's free will. The problems caused by large corporations will, therefore, only be effectively solved by addressing this fundamental structure and ontogeny.

Paper Proposal for "All Roads Lead to Rome"

If you haven't read my paper "All Roads Lead to Rome: Processes of Hierarchy, Subsidy and Control in the Evolution of Empire", then take a look at the revised version here:

http://www.jeffvail.net/2004/10/all-roads-lead-to-rome.html

I've just submitted proposals to present this paper at three conferences:

"Empire and It's Discontents" at York University, Toronto (http://www.yorku.ca/spt/)
"Sicily, Europe and the Mediterranean" at Messina, Italy (http://www.mediterraneanstudies.org/)
"People, History and Literature" at Cambridge University (http://www.cam.ac.uk/)

LOAC: The "Laws" of Armed Conflict

I just finished looking through the latest, official DoD propaganda PowerPoint (what? DoD using PowerPoint!?) on insurgent LOAC violations in al-Falluja.

"Law" of Armed Conflict (LOAC) seems like a rather funny animal. In my world view, there are no "true" laws or rights, only the POWER of certain groups to enforce patterns of behavior that they call "laws" or "rights". War, of course, is how opposing groups resolve disagreements when neither side recognizes that the other has enough power to enforce their idea of "law" and "right". So war, then, is predicated on the breakdown or absence of "law". Which makes it rather funny that some nations insist on applying "law" to warfare. Let's take a closer look at this:

The US Military has formed their own "law" of war (which, coincidentally is taught to all military members as "the" law of war, not "our" or "a" law of war). It is based on precedent from international agreements (that is, those that we choose to honor, unlike the Geneva Convention, UN Charter, etc.) formed in a world system in which they dominated the agenda. Now they are using it as a propaganda tool (primarily to enforce the dominant domestic opinion that the US action in Iraq is somehow noble). Imagine: the world's dominant power, using a set of "laws" that they made up, claiming moral superiority because they adhere to there own law (in their view, of course), while the insurgents do not, and are therefore "bad".

This "law" is, of course, carefully structured to "outlaw" those forms of asymetric warfare that are effective against the US military.

There is no "right" or "law", only power. Social contract is possible: if a group of soverign individuals submits to a collective power governed by laws, in order to gain benefit of membership in that group, then they must submit to rule by those laws, or to leave the group (along with its benefits) if they refuse. Any "law" made one group and applied to individuals who did not voluntarily submit to that "law" is just what the quotation marks imply: a cover for the coercive use of power, for the imposition of one set of values involuntarily upon another. That's what LOAC is. If the US military uses LOAC as a guideline for its own action--based on what it thinks is "right" or "ethical", then more power to them. In fact, I would recommend it. However, when they try to impose their set of morality on an outside group, let us recognize this for what it is: a military and public-relations tactic.

Win the War on Terror: Stop Making Enemies

How to win the war on terror? Stop making enemies. It sounds trite and simplistic, but bear with me for a moment. Can you think of any base of terrorism that we didn't first seriously alienate? If you can, go find a better history book (or Any history book).

This nation was founded (and even though I'm writing on Thanksgiving, I don't mean the "pilgrims") by a group of people who were tired of living in an exploited colony. The manifestation of revolution to overthrow hegemony and tyranny were ideas who's time had come--France experienced a similar set of events just a few years later. Hegel would have said that this was an idea with a life of its own, and that it was now manifesting through the life of men (in fact, he did say that). He would likely have something similar to say about terrorism.

How is it, then, that this nation founded on the ideal of freedom from tyranny and colonial control has become the greatest transgressor of that ideal? Can we not see the parallels between our forefathers' relationship with England and the "developing" world's relationship with the US today? Until Iraq, it was easy to deffend our actions as those of the free market--we didn't practice overt imperialism. But this ignores that we (with some of Europe) consciously shifted to financial imperialism at the Bretton-Woods accord. Now add "intellectual property", GMO grain and global media and the US is in fact far more of a colonial power (and more oppressive) than Britain was to the American Colonies. Is it any surprise that our colonies are rising up in revolt?

My suggestion, then, is that as a nation we again embody this principle of anti-colonialism in our foreign policy. Treat the world as equals, enter into agreements that are mutually beneficial, not exploitative (see my commentary on The World System). As a hegemonic power, we are perhaps the only nation in the world capable of affecting that change, and the only way to start is with personal example:

1. Unilaterally dispose of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as the facilities for making them. Don't wait for others to disarm: we know now that a one sided strike by Russia or China against a disarmed US would still kill the entire world. Nuclear and biological war are not viable options for any party. It's pretty difficult to tell other nations to disarm when we're sitting on the world's largest arsenal.

2. Stop the subsidized loan programs to foreign nations. If a nation has the economic footing to get a development loan from a commercial bank, then they must have good prospects of paying it off. Why then do they need the IMF or World Bank? The answer: to fund projects that, while not good investments, benefit the nations that decide who gets what loan (read "The West"). A slower, grass-roots brand of development will produce a more stable economy, and won't crush indigenous people, cultures, environment, etc. While we'r at it, forgive all foreign debt incurred as a part of these programs.

3. Stop the subsidized sale of military equiment to select national "partners". This ends up being primarily a giveaway (Keynsian stimulus) to US defense contractors, but it also is one of America's primary means of influence in foreign affairs--particularly in maintaining regimes (like Saddam and Sukarno) who did not and could not have risen to power via democratic means.

4. Unilaterally permit free-trade, provided that any producer nation (and all derivative production nations) meets all domestic US standards for environment, human rights, labor laws, etc. This will stop oursourcing our dirty laundry and provide positive pressures on foreign regimes.

5. Restructure the United Nations from an elite club with balcony seating for "lesser" nations (with permanent security council members holding veto power). If the UN is to be a vehicle for cooperation and mutually beneficial action, then it must be a tool of all members. Eliminate the security council entirely (to include the veto power of permanent members), and give each member 1 vote, with a 2/3 majority needed to pass any action. Few truly mutually beneficial actions would have difficulty meeting that threshold, while it would prevent most tyranny of the majority.

6. Stop subsidizing the defense of the oil supply system, and strive seriously for energy independence. The quest for cheap energy at all corners of the globe is the prime mover of current foreign policy (and of making new enemies, as well as keeping old ones). Take the long-term view, remove temptation, end the catalyst of colonialism.

That's just a start, but there's no better way to diffuse the terrorists (without directly giving in to them and validating their methods) than to demonstrate that we are serious about shifting to a mutally beneficial paradigm. We'll stop making new enemies, and take the wind out of the sails of our current enemies.

Demonstrated that we intend to shift from world-hierarchy to world-rhizome. It is not just the most sustainable, independent pattern for humanity in small locales--it is the best pattern for global civilization as well.

Blog Theory and the Pattern of Rhizome

It's quite apropos that the discussions of rhizome and network theory found here take place on a blog--a quintessential example of rhizome merging with modern technology. In fact, I'm consciously trying to use this blog as a model for the viability of rhizome in the modern world.

Are there any blog theorists out there who care to offer advice?

How can I consciously mold this blog into a stronger rhizome node? I plan to add a search engine to it, and to consider categorizing my posts. I am actively looking for complementary blogs for link-exchanges and content exchange. I plan to improve the graphic header to the blog shortly. I am working to joing a number of web rings, as network is the real strength of the pattern of Rhizome. I am also attempting to make the blog experience more interactive, possibly by adding a sideblog for personal journaling that is open to public posting. I plan to work on my book lists (expand them and categorize them), and other outside links (also expand and categorize).

What to do?

It's one of the fundamental questions of philosophy: What should I do, and why?

As I work through the development of my own philosophy, the problem of answering this question appears to be fundamentally tied to a definition of "Self". Let me try to bring you right to the edge of my current thinking, starting with a summary of my philosophy of Self:

1. We exist as living, dynamic patterns of information, not as static, monolithic entities. We are nothing more than a complex disturbance in a continuous, unitary field that is the universe.
2. What we at first think of as "Self" emerges from the interaction of a variety of patterns called genes and memes. Our ontogeny--the evolution of these interacting patterns over time that has led to its present manifestation--defines our current form.
3. Self awareness, and critically the self-aware awareness of this composition of "Self" frees the "Self" from the controlling influence of ontogeny: this is the emergence of true self, the moment of enlightenment taught in so many traditions.
4. This independent, enlightened Self exists as a momentary realization of freedom from ego (the point of attachment of gene and meme).
5. This enlightenment, independence from ego does not, however, answer the question: "What to do", as answering this question requires first defining a goal to work towards, and the setting of any goal is governed by the desires of the Ego.
6. Is it possible to develop a goal or goals for human action independent of the influence of ego? Can we, as a community of "Self"s come up with a vision for human action that we can move towards, or will our best efforts result in us continuing to serve the masters of gene and meme?

I think that I have experienced my "Self" free from any influence or control. It has been a momentary and fleeting sensation. It can be greatly insightful--I now have a better understanding of what "I" am, separate from the ontogeny of my body and mind. However, I have been unable to translate this knowledge into an informed set of goals or actions. I have not yet been able to answer the question "What do I (my "true self", not my ontogenetic self) want?"

Do "I" want pure hedonism, the pursuit of the optimization of certain neurochemicals? No, I my awareness illuminates that such a goal is a goal of my ontogenetic self. All forms of utilitarianism, idealism, etc. promulgated by every philosophy that I have uncovered falls, in one form or another, into the category of hedonism. Even selfless devotion to others is ultimately a pursuit of hedonism, because it maximizes the release of certain neruochemicals that are controlled by the meme of selfless sacrifice (i.e. benefit to society above self, very valuable to a meme hosted by that society, not by a single "Self"). Schadenfreude, Mother Theresa... all hedonism.

While I don't have an answer to the question that began this post, I have uncovered two goals that do not fall into the category of general hedonism (as defined above):

1. Fulfilled Ontogeny. Paul Shepard's concept that certain economic, physical, political and social environments are optimal for the functioning of our ontogenetic Self. Our genes are frozen (more or less) in the late-Pleistocene hunter-gatherer state. Since then we have evolved as societies, but not as individuals. Therefore the individual will function best in those environments most similar to late-Pleistocene mode of life. While this is not, in itself, a "goal" of the true Self, it does seem that it is a prerequisite, or at least a catalyst to free the node of the individual from the control of complex societal memes. If our a priori goal can be accepted as the desire to identify and realize the goals of the true Self, then creating an environment in which the individual is most free from outside control seems important.

2. Beauty. I have so far been unable to identify how the awareness and expression of beauty is a manifestation of ontogenetic Self. I do not see how it serves a meme, or how it serves a gene. Art, in the form of symbolic expression, certain serves memes--in fact is a meme. But beauty does not provide symbolic storage or communication, and does not seem to serve any purpose to the meme. Beauty appears, to me, to be independent of ontogeny. Therefore, I must ask what it is? Many mystical traditions have viewed it as a connection to the divine, or a point of intersection between the divided self and the unitary whole. Modern science seems to confirm the possibility that this view is correct: non-local effects, unified fields, even the puzzles of developmental microbiology point towards this interpretation. If you will remember, earlier I defined Self as a "complex disturbance in a continuous, unitary field that is the universe." Beauty may be a brief realization of this continuity. I don't know. I do think, however, that beauty holds a clue to the conceptualization of goals of the true Self.

So where does that leave us? Am I really going to leave the question of "What to do" entirely unanswered? No: I will provide the guidance under which I currently attempt to operate. But I will not claim that these are goals of the true Self:

A. Attempt to act with conscious awareness of the role of the ontogenetic Self in all things.
B. Continue to attempt to understand the goals of the true Self, and of beauty.
C. Attempt to formulate and pursue goals, to act in a manner that fulfills three criteria simultaneously to the greatest degree possible (and when not possible, discriminate in the order listed): 1) Will this action manifest fulfilled ontogeny, creating an environment which is more like the late-Pleistocene world to which my genes are optimized? 2) Does this action pursue conscious hedonism (which, in an individual aware of the broadest effects of their actions, should not lead to selfishness, but to a balanced selflessness in light of others and the world)? 3) Is this action an example of elegant simplicity, in the manner that it pursues all of the goals listed here?

Unsatisfying, I'll admit, but these are the best that I have to offer. For now.

Developmental Microbiology and Caste

Here's one of the fundamental puzzles in science:

When an egg is fertilized and begins to divide, the divided cells share the exact same DNA. In fact, they're identical as far as we know. These cells, however, begin to arrange themselves into differentiated groupings: some become bone, some brain, some liver, etc. The fact that they begin to diverge from each other is no shock, but the fact that they always end up in the very exact, complex form of a human is. They each hold identical instructions (DNA), so how do they know to take on different roles, and especially, how do they create such a similar complex structure without any outside guidance and instruction? This is the fundamental puzzle of developmental microbiology, and we do not have an answer to this day.

There are various theories--usually labeled "New Age" and rarely acknowledged by the microbiology community--that suggest that the "field" or "vibration" or something similar in the mother guides the development of these cells. John Holland, in his book "Hidden Order" (see book list on side bar) attempts to solve this problem in his computer simulations of life, but cannot. It's a mystery.

Now take a step back and look at human society. When it comes to raw resources, all societies are composed of very similar building blocks--humans, just like humans are composed of very similar building blocks--cells. Why is it that isolated societies tend to develop remarkably similar systems of symbolism, religion, even political mechanics? Is the similarity between Ceres/Bacchus/Demeter, Horus/Isis/Osiris, Jesus/Mary/God due to cultural diffusion, or is it due to some larger pattern that invisibly guides societal development? Do so many cultures share a mythology of a flood (Vikings, Mayan, Incan, Persian, Christian, Aboriginal, etc.) because it actually happened, or because of the guidance of this unidentified pattern? Could this same concept of organizing pattern answer the questions of society and microbiology?

Perhaps of greater concern, is escape from this pattern possible? Science can't explain why cells dividing from a fertilized egg ever divide themselves into bone vs. muscle, brain vs. liver, etc. Why don't they just keep dividing to form a big blob? Similarly, there have been many (continuous?) attempts to influence the stratification of humans in society: Marxist and communists and democratic idealists all push for a society in which there is no stratification of priviledge or power. Similarly, autocracies have attempted to create societies completely subservient to a small ruling group. Why have all of these attempts always failed? Why are there always outcasts and rebels, followers and leaders, plodders and innovators? Is this pattern of stratification due to some larger pattern that dictates caste to humanity much like some unknown force tells some cells to become bone and others muscle despite the fact that they both began as identical (or in the case of humanity, nearly identical) organisms?

It may be a stretch to compare microbiology to human society. In fact, the only value may be metaphorical. However, it is critical to any theory of political philosophy to explain IF all people can possibly exist free and independent, or IF some people need to follow obsequiously. WHAT causes some to be restless and look for new answers, and others to happily accept a life of repetition and order? Is there some form of caste built in to the governing pattern of human organization? I explore this topic briefly in the framework of H. G. Well's Eloi and Morlock in my book, "A Theory of Power", but it remains an unanswered question. Is this stratification of human functioning increasing as hierarchy increases? Will it divide us into multiple species, some literally serving others? Is it dependent on the size of a hierarchy, as this phenomenon exhibits less in smaller, more isolated societies than it does in large, integrated hierarchies?

This is a critical question to anyone who would change politics, society or spirituality. It also seems to touch on questions of identity, self and soul. Is there a fundamental organizing pattern in our world that relegates some to slavery and elevates others to some kind of pattern nobility? What is the cause of this pattern-influence: does it create hierarchy, or is it the result of it? Can it be altered, and how? Like other patterns of control, can we free ourselves by means of awareness of the mechanics of its influence???

Economic Theory and Reality

Many people, lay economists and “credentialed” professors alike, believe that without government interference a free-market would create an libertarian utopia. They state that “the only way a monopoly could exist would be for the entity in question to exert force or violence upon others to prevent such competition. If force is used on a free market, it would be quashed, no matter how big the entity because no matter what size, it is ALWAYS much smaller than the market itself and the super-majority (actually I would go farther and call it 'human nature') is not too happy to have force used against it.” They explain away the fact that this has never been the case in the entire run of human history by stating that “change is ALWAYS occurring and something that was 'true' for a given set of circumstances in the past does not make it true today”.

I understand the general hesitance to accept history as applicable to the present or future situation. It is certainly problematic... I also agree that, in a game theory world, monopoly will be, at most, a temporary phenomenon. However, I look to history to explain why, at least in the past, force and violence have successfully controlled the functioning of the free market. In a game-theory world, with a nice even playing field and an even distribution of resources, then the market would--I think--be able to overcome the tendency toward concentration of power (both to distort the market, and otherwise). But outside the world of theory, there are fundamentally uneven distributions of everything, from intelligence to resources to geography to weather, etc. These cause power to pool, just like water pools in the landscape. Power is the basic ingredient in all human interaction, whether we're dealing with force, with a market, etc. (in fact, one could describe a market as a means of optimizing exchange in an environment of fairly evenly distributed power). So while I'll agree that localized power will ALWAYS be smaller than the totality of "the market", due to this pooling effect, it will often be (and history demonstrates that it always has been) powerful enough to distort or control the market locally. Locally, of course, could be just within the limits of Smallsville, nowhere, or it could be within the confines of the entire Roman Empire (or American Empire...).

As quoted, change in history is ALWAYS occurring. I like to look at it along the lines of a "strange attractor": As change is always occurring, that in itself becomes a constant. Similarly, we seem to keep changing in the same patterns and methods again and again.

My distaste for hierarchy is relatively straight forward: I think that it's pretty inefficient when it grows beyond a certain size. Stratification, division of effort/labor, centralized planning... these phenomena have clear cut benefits. However, as hierarchy grows, it begins to experience an exponential increase in the demand for information processing, as well as an increase in information distortion (Wilson's SNAFU principle). The exact point at which hierarchal organization crosses the threshold of inefficiency will vary, but I contend that it is far lower than most people think. Add to that our genetic optimization to interact in SMALL group environments (most management "scientists" will tell you 8-15 person groups) in combination with infrequent, weak/distant interactions with wider networks (Buchanan's "Small Worlds" theory), and it seems to me that rhizome acts as a more efficient organizing principle.

Economists also contend that their models of hierarchy, monopoly and free market work because all humanity always acts in their own selfish interest: a free market of selfish participants, they say, will maximize utility for all. Unfortunately, it isn’t quite that simple because human psychology and motivation is actually quite complex (I discuss this at length in my book, “A Theory of Power”). Basically, there are two competing influences: the demands of our genes, and the demands of our memes, both interacting with our conscious brain through the harness of what, for sake of simplicity, I will just call our ego. While most economic theorists like to think of human motivation as monolithic and self-interested, I think that the realization that we are controlled by two competing and often opposed mechanisms is critical. For example, memes may influence us to endure pain in for the betterment of society, or to advance socially, while genes may provide a conflicting input to minimize that pain. For a few people, aware of the ontogeny of their own controlling mechanisms, there can be an independent action not controlled by either meme or gene.

So that said, most humans act to maximize the release and level of certain neurochemicals. Past economists have often characterized this as "selfish-interest", but it is important to point out that societal memes (which have evolved to empower society at the expense of the individual's genetic impulses) have co-opted genetic control mechanisms for the benefit of societal structures (increasingly hierarchy). So do humans all act in individual self-interests? NO. Many do, most of the time. Many also act against their 'genetic' self-interest some of the time. Ultimately this comes down to the need to adequately define "self", which is no simple task by itself: Am I my genes? Am I the memes that infest my brain? Am I something else entirely? It is difficult to calculate the economic effect of selfish-action without answering those questions, but the complexity of the answer (again, see “A Theory of Power”) does not fit easily with the two-axis graphs of classical economics.

Letter to Ed Dodson

Below is a letter to Edward Dodson of the School of Cooperative Individualism (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/) commenting on the Georgist school of political philosophy, and specifically critiquing his essay “The Democratic Imperative” (www.cooperativeindividualism.org/dodson_democratic_imperative_one.html)

Dear Ed,

I’ve enjoyed reading “The Democratic Imperative”, and other samplings of Georgist thought. Both of our philosophies appear dedicated to maximizing liberty within the realities of human political organization. While we differ in our areas of focus, I think that both our means and our ends are quite complementary. I find that I agree with nearly all of the arguments made in “The Democratic Imperative”, as well as the “Principles of Cooperative Individualism” found on your website. What follows, then, focuses on explaining why I choose to place emphasis on different parts of what I see as a common cause:

Let me start with one of the principles of your philosophy: “That human behavior falls outside the realm of liberty, and within the realm of criminal license when such behavior violates the liberty of others.” I agree completely. I find that a principle of my philosophy is quite similar: hierarchal organization creates differential stratification of power (liberty) where the few accumulate power (liberty) taken from the many. Hierarchy, then, falls within the realm of criminal license.

In order to preserve liberty for all, you suggest that “[w]hat is needed to more fully realize the promise of democracy is take the debate over solutions to a sustained, higher level that focuses not simply or primarily on short-run, remedial measures, but looks at the fundamental construction of our socio-political arrangements and institutions.” Again, I only differ on what part of our “fundamental construction” to focus on. Your essay suggests that we revise the mechanisms of our democratic political-economy (significant changes to our representative form of government, corporate structure, government funding sources, etc.) in order to prevent abusive, uneven distribution of liberty. I prefer to focus on what I see as the root cause of the problem: the fundamental structure of hierarchy.

As an alternative to hierarchy, I propose the transition to a “rhizome”, or networked architecture in our political-economy. The abuses of liberty (which I consider interchangeable with my term: power) in our nation and in our world stem from the fundamental structure of hierarchy. From studying anthropology, history, economics and physics, I have come to the conclusion that hierarchy as a pattern tends towards continual centralization and intensification. Its very structure is predicated upon taking liberty away from people to concentrate it at ever-more-distant points. Hierarchy creates rigid, inflexible structures that are incredibly strong until they shatter in the cycles of history. But through grass-roots efforts towards localized economic interaction and decentralization we can transition from hierarchy to rhizome. The phrase “cooperative individualism” puts this vision very eloquently, indeed. In my view, the fundamental failure of any government—and certainly of our present government—is systemic. It is due to the problems of information processing within hierarchies of significant size, and will not be resolved solely by the restructuring within the framework of hierarchy. At best, I think that a restructuring of our government—without a removal of its centralized, stratified, hierarchal nature—would result in a system of benevolent, but equally ineffective bureaucracy.

Of course, stepping outside the narrow confines of political theory, it seems most effective to address our real-world problems with a forked strategy: simultaneous modification of our government (top-down) as recommended in “The Democratic Imperative”, along with a grass-roots economic and political decentralization and transition to rhizome as I advocate in my book, “A Theory of Power”. Rhizome defeats hierarchy by making it irrelevant: it is not a step into the past, but as the most recent discoveries about network architecture and group psychology suggest, it is a step forward.

I think that the true strength of both of our approaches is that they don’t rely on revolution or violence to be realized. We clearly share similar goals. I am confident that my theories can be improved by incorporating Georgist thinking, working for complementary actions and common ground… hopefully the effect can be reciprocal.

~Jeff Vail

Thoughts on Iran and the Iraqi elections

Iran has a vested interest in the outcome of January's elections. Perhaps I should say "elections", but that is yet to be decided. Anyway, they will most likely hold off any overtly provocative actions until then. It is nearly inconceivable (nearly) that in a free and fair Iraqi election, a pro-shiite, pro-Iran party doesn't come to power. Iran is working hard under the table, via their military (BADR) and political (SCIRI) arms in Iraq to ensure that this does happen. If a pro-Iran, shiite party comes to power, then they have shored up their flank and take a step towards becoming the regional hegemon that they aspire to be. However, in the event that a pro-Iran Shiite party doesn't come to power, the assumption will be that the election was unfair (both in Iran and among the Shiite majority in Iraq), and then I would expect Iran to begin more overt actions to 1) arm and instigate Shiite resistance, which will flare up after an election loss, 2) proceed with their nuclear program, and 3) possibly make some overtures towards al-Qai'da to exact a reaction from the US. It's unrealistic (in my opinion) for Iran to expect the US to "change" the results of the election in order to get concessions from Iran. It's equally unrealistic for the US to invade Iran while still bogged down in Iraq (though I wouldn't be surprised by airstrikes). Ultimately, US failure in Iraq benefits Iran only if the Shiites lose the election, so I would expect Iran to be very quiet, even make some concessions on reprocessing to the Europeans until the elections have passed. If the Shiites win, and do so convincingly (i.e. they actually get 60% of the power commensurate with their population, something that the US is working hard to prevent), then Iran will congratulate them and attempt to "rejoin the world community" and drop their a-bomb program in exchange for lifted sanctions. The Bush administration will have a difficult time declining this offer (peace dividend?...), but this election result will ultimately end with the fall of the House of Saud as Saudi and Iraqi sunnis become even more polarized against secular authorities. If the Shiites don't win, then Iran will incite a renewed insurgency in the South, Iraq will fall into chaos, the US will be overwhelmed (because the Sunni regions will likely reject the outcome as well), and when the US withdraws and Iraq falls into chaos, the House of Saud will follow shortly there after. Which, of course, has been bin Laden's goal all along. That, in turn, is why there won't be any major terrorist attacks in the US for the next few years, because bin Laden's effort is better spent manipulating the efforts in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and the US public won't support prolongued casulaties in Iraq if there is no longer a perceived threat in the "homeland".

[foot stomping]

Any theory that bin Laden/al-Qai'da will conduct another attack on America must explain how that action will bring about the fall of the House of Saud, as that is their ultimate goal. Everything else (9/11 included) is intended to realize that.

I give King Fahd & Co. 3 years.

Who knows, could happen...

Cooperative Individualism

My intent is to make this a "content blog", and I'm resisting the temptation to link to every web site or news event that I find interesting. That said, I've recently stumbled upon http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/. Very well presented writing and instructional materials on a theory of human organization roughly based on the works of philosophers such as Thomas Paine and Henry George. I found it especially interesting that the author (Edward Dobson) was able to effectively criticize the tendency of the modern concept of ownership (especially of land) to lead to heirarchy and stratification without simultaneously supporting statist socialism.

Dobson presents some excellent ideas that address the fundamental flaw of anarcho-capitalism and minarchy: that an unfettered free market will inevitably lead to intensification of centralization and stratification of power, returning ultimately to an oppressive state structure.

What's at Stake: The Election and the World-System

Today I read "What's at Stake" on www.opinionjournal.com. It sounded like the typical argument that I keep hearing: we need to stand strong as a beacon of freedom and justice against this onslaught on our freedom by terrorists. I think that this misses the point. Either through hubris, ignorance, isolationism or all of the above, we keep thinking that this is all about us--that 9/11 was an attack on the American way of life or on freedom or something like that. It's my opinion that it was nothing of the sort.

Bin Laden wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate throughout the Arabic Middle East. To do that, he needs to remove the secular regimes that are currently in power. Most are supported by the US (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, etc.). Most are autocracies of one form or another (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, etc.). He probably thinks (in my opinion correctly) that removing US support to these regimes is a key part of any plan to make them fall. He also needs to polarize the average person in these countries against their leadership and the US. He does this in part by linking the US with Israel. This is also achieved by making the US out as an occupying, corrupt force in the Middle East, using the era of British imperialism as a model.

In my opinion, this is what 9/11 was about. It wasn't a strike on freedom: if we were sponsoring freedom, then we wouldn't be supporting all those regimes that I mentioned above that stifle it. We would just let people follow the course that they want to follow. Even in Iraq, for example, we aren't really fostering freedom. We're working on ways to better shape their elections, because if they are held today the country would elect a Shiite, pro-Iran party by a large margin (60%), and we can't accept that kind of free outcome. The Kurds would vote overwhelmingly for autonomy, and we can't allow that either (that would be freedom, but it would also annoy our allies the Turks).

People in the Middle East are, understandably, cynical about our motives. If a truly freely elected Iraqi government elected to nationalize their oil infrastructure, would we just stand by? No one can claim to KNOW the answer to that, but they can point to history. We didn't choose to support the side of freedom when Iran nationalized their oil infrastructure, nor with Cuba (who didn't request Soviet assistance until after we had passed an embargo after their nationalization). Normally people argue that nationalization is illegal due to "property rights", but conveniently overlook that in most of the world these property rights were established during an age of overt imperialism (Iran and Cuba both apply).

The problem here, in my opinion, isn't that we support freedom, or that we don't support freedom. It's that we act in our own selfish interest, and when applicable we use "freedom" as a cover. When not applicable, we find another cover, like "defeating the spread of communism" (Central America), "stability" (supporting 50 years of Indonesian dictators), etc. This is why we have no credibility in the international arena: everyone outside the blanket of US news coverage can see and hear what's actually happening, and then they can hear us calling these actions "upholding democracy" and "supporting freedom". At least overt imperialism is honest.

Now some will respond to this that "Hey, we're American... I don't live in Beirut or someplace like that, and, after all, you've got to look out for #1".

There are two basic economic theories:
1. Increase wealth through exchange. I trade something that I have a lot of, and you have little of, for something that you have a lot of and I have little of. We both benefit, and wealth is increased. Tends to produce stable, long-lasting historical patterns.
2. Increase wealth through exploitation. I use my (usually temporary) power advantage over you to take what you have lots of and I have little of. I benefit, you hate me, and my wealth is increased. Tends to produce a system of reciprocity and volatility in history.

The "got to look out for #1" theory is clearly economic theory #2. Use the cover of "freedom" to ensure that our own selfish interest is protected. Recognize that it will result in acts of reciprocity (terrorism, etc.), but that as long as we have the power advantage (dominating military), the benefit gained will outweigh the reciprocity. History tells us that, inevitable, tides will turn, and we'll end up getting exploited in a world dominated by this system. I see this as the world-view of George Bush, the neocons, etc. Is it a perfectly valid strategy? Yes. Do I think that it is the wisest course of action for our country? No.

The alternative, illustrated by economic theory #1, is to pursue mutually beneficial action. Following our selfish interest (even in the "name" of freedom) may be more profitable in the short term, but increasing our mutual wealth through following the most mutually beneficial action is the most profitable in the long term. The prisoner's dilemma in economic game theory illustrates this clearly. So does the Nash Equilibrium (have you seen "A Beautiful Mind"?). It is difficult, in an age of immediate-horizon politics and an emotionally reactionary American populace to follow such a policy, but it is possible, and in my opinion, it is clearly the wisest choice. While by no means perfect, I think that John Kerry will follow a set of policies much more in line with this principle of mutually beneficial action. He has demonstrated (and more importantly, Bush has demonstrated the opposite) that it is often necessary to make short term sacrifices to build relationships that will foster the kind of world system that provides benefit to all, not just to the powerful. Power only makes you safe as long as you have most of it. Setting aside our national hubris for a moment, we should realize that history tells us that we will inevitably, eventually be in a position where we don't have most of it anymore. When that happens, our safety, our prosperity will be determined by what kind of world-system we foster today. Memories of our temporary wealth will make us (or more likely, posterity) wonder what kind of short-sighted people our ancestors were. Just my opinion, but I think that is the true answer to "What's at Stake".

It's almost Halloween...

Keywords of Elegant Simplicity

Seasonal
Cyclical
Varied
Festive
Conscious
Meaningful
Connected
Beautiful
Local
Rustic
Communal
Independent

Apply each of these to food, body, spirit, home, friendship and community, and this will infuse our lives with the meaning that we desire, without deepening (even reversing) our dependence on centralized, stratified, hierarchal control structures.

Magazine Simplicity

In the last few weeks I have spent many hours in airports…boredom interspersed with browsing through the magazines at the multitude of identical news stands. I had just returned from a sailing trip to the wilds of the Sonoran coast of the Sea of Cortez where I made a deliberate effort to not bring along any type of reading material, ensuring that I would truly enjoy the solitude and beauty of my surroundings.

The result: a whole day in the airport without anything decent to read. Which, as already mentioned, led me to the magazine racks. ‘Travel & Leisure’, ‘Dwell’, ‘Esquire’, ‘Architectural Digest’… I must have looked through half the magazines on their rack. By their very nature they are geared towards promoting consumerism, either through promoting the benefits of well-placed products or simply hosting the horde of glossy, full-color advertisements. Even ‘Yoga Journal’ and ‘Real Simple’ were clearly oriented towards getting you to buy something more.

Advertising is a funny thing. The qualities of a product are often quite apparent. You need flour to bake. Everyone knows that. How many advertisements for flour do you see? In fact, advertising in general doesn’t make much of an attempt to illustrate the features or qualities of a product—instead it tries to link that product to some kind of image, allure or mystique. Look at a watch advertisement: Tag Heuer, for example, doesn’t expound on the merits of its Swiss movement. Instead they try to associate their product with speed, or perhaps with “Tiger-Woods-ness”. Clothing advertisements rarely focus on the clothing at all—they try to create associations with beautiful people, places, etc.

This isn’t exactly a profound insight. What struck me, however, was that nearly all of these attempts to speed consumption relied on the eternal appeal of simplicity: a perfect afternoon meal (Bella Sera wines and Subzero Fridges), enjoying the sun with friends (Ralph Lauren), spending time with a lover (Eternity cologne), the value of a low-stress, peaceful life (Prana Yoga Clothing), etc. In each case, the consumption of the advertised product has very little to do with the emotion evoked. I have observed each of these qualities being enjoyed by people in “third world” countries who will probably never be able to afford the products advertised. Even in places where people can afford them, outside of the United States, people still retain some ability to grasp that it is not the product that provides the emotion. On the contrary, it is more the absence of a driving need for such products that frees us to pursue the actual emotional states, the experiences that we desire.

Which brings me back to my campaign for “Elegant Simplicity” and “Conspicuous Simplicity”. These are still vaguely defined concepts, but perhaps the example above will help to clarify: pare down what you want to what will actually bring it to you, look past the self-interested claims of consumer culture, and work towards the achievement of the simplicity that will ultimately prove fulfilling. Bella Sera wines and Sub Zero fridges don’t make a perfect afternoon meal. Look instead to “slow food”, quality, fresh, seasonal ingredients (a backyard fruit tree?), and most importantly contemplate the beauty of every bite and every flavor. ‘Prana’ brand yoga clothing won’t bring you peace of mind, but yoga might (it’s free, despite its overt commercialization), or something else as simple as a walk in the woods. Eternity brand cologne won’t make for a pleasant day with a lover, but conscious attention and simply taking the time out of a busy schedule will (a schedule that is probably busied with the drive to acquire and afford more consumables).

Elegant Simplicity is just that: reprioritizing your life, your patterns of action and interaction, around those things that will provide true fulfillment. See through the mirage of consumption and enjoy the pleasures of life that are free for all—if we will only take the time to seize them. Our genetic ontogeny has wired us to desire simple things: nature, friendship, love, community, food, firelight, festival, song and dance. These things are free, or nearly free, despite the machinations of our memetic-consumer society. Once we understand how things are organized, how things are controlled, and how we can break free of those controls through understanding, there is no reason that we should not all enjoy the high life of Elegant Simplicity.

Conspicuous Simplicity

I'll start off by admitting that I'm making this whole concept up as I type this: Conspicuous Simplicity. It's a work in progress--but hey, this is a blog. Don't set your bar too high.

It can be difficult to convince people that reduced consumption and minimization of the use of exotic, high-tech, imported and 'unnecessary' goods is a worthy sacrifice in the name of localization, self-sufficiency, sustainability and the reduction of hierarchy. The thing is, we like our stuff. In an atmosphere of faltering family, loose or non-functioning community, little sense of place and an enhanced feeling of separation from nature, we have allowed hierarchy to replace these sources of experiential wealth, psychological wealth and fulfilled ontogeny with material surrogates. We have more things in our life, but perhaps not more happiness than our ancestors.

But despite what our logic may (or may not) tell us, we aren't prepared to give up these security blankets of consumption in exchange for the promise that "you'll be ok--actually, you'll be better without it." We look at the wealth of tribal people and peasant cultures and can't place it within our mental framework of MTV Cribs and Christmas presents. Unless we're forced by some climate event or economic crisis, we're unlikely to voluntarily reduce consumption. The propaganda of the hierarchal economic system is just too strong a draw. Of course, by the time one of those inevitable triggers (i.e. no more petroleum) begins to cause problems, it may be too late to pull of the most difficult maneuver in the play book: an orderly retreat. There's a good chance that, unless we can figure out a way to voluntarily reduce our consumption early and often, it won't be a pretty picture once we're forced into it.

How can the allure of the hierarchal consumer-economy be defeated by a movement of voluntary simplicity? I suggest two simple principles: 'elegant simplicity' and 'conspicuous simplicity'. Taken together, they just may smooth the landing of the brief flight of our 'free-energy' ship.

1. Elegant simplicity: some things work better, are more efficient when they are simple. Simple may not serve the needs of hierarchy, but it often does serve the needs of the individual, family or community. We need to develop and explore these instances when simple is more efficient than complex. I won't go into examples here, but this is a body of knowledge that must be developed, remembered, etc.

2. Conspicuous simplicity: replace the cultural ethos of "conspicuous consumption" with "conpicuous simplicity". If it is desireable to have a flashy and showy level of simplicity, to have as high a standard of living as possible in a "simpler" manner than your neighbor, then we may be able to make the transition from hierarchy and complexity to rhizome and simplicity. It CAN happen--take a look at advertising all around you and look at how attractive the "simplicity" is, how hard the advertisers have to work to make that rolex or ferrari stick out of the beautiful nature scene, how difficult it is to brand your hotel when the real attraction is a quaint seaside locale. How the real star of that diamond commercial is two people in love--or at least the nice meal they're sharing.

Elegant, conspicuous simplicity. It's at least a start.

Vernacular Zen

Vernacular Zen: Glimpses of "The Original Affluent Society"

I am an advocate of localization, simplification, self-sufficiency and fulfilled ontogeny. Slow food. Tribalism. A thousand other catch-phrases that, above all else, raise a singular objection from friends and critics alike: isn't your idealized vision starkly juxtaposed to your professed enjoyment of the finer things in life?

My response: on the contrary, my good friend...these worlds are in fact one in the same, only separated by the disinformation of the consumer economy.

Povero o Rico?? Is this an image of a "poor" fishing village or one of the worlds most exclusive resort islands? Actually, it's both--a picture of the idyllic island of Panarea (just North of Sicily) taken by the author while sailing away aboard the 38' sailboat "Fandango."

I have spent, to be perfectly honest, more than my fair share of mornings slowly enjoying an espresso as the fog burns off the slopes of Mount Etna in the distance, the scent of blood orange blossoms mingling with the sharp aroma of coffee. This is the kind of perfect moment that embodies our cultural ethos: sacrifice enough of what you love now, and you'll make enough money that some day you'll be able to buy back those priceless experiences in the form of a luxury cruise, a meal at that new bistro or a beach house in Florida. The irony is that this perfect moment cost about 65 cents--that's less than 8 minutes wage for a cashier at McDonald's, and yet it's enough to make highly paid executives and professionals alike salivate. This should tell us something...

The finer things in life can generally be divided into two categories: material and experiential. Despite the relentless psychological barrage of advertising, most of us can readily admit that it is the experiential that is truly rewarding and fulfilling. Many even recognize their own predilection to fulfill their desire for the experiential by compensating with an excess of the material. Commercialism tells us that the experiential--that which requires time--is too costly, out of our reach. Our time, we are led to believe, must be sacrificed to meet the demands of the economy. But time is free for all of us. It is the great equalizer, something to which we all have equally random access. But in the modern economy, where average individuals cannot directly provide for themselves, they are duped into trading time for the basic necessities of life--necessities that are directly available to the poorest of the Earth. As this economic hierarchy has intensified over time, we continue to be duped into trading our time for material possessions--far beyond those required to survive. The memes of our economic culture have convinced us that the material is a fine substitute for the experiential. A nagging doubt, dissatisfaction with our own suburbanization, some unknown, unfulfilled yearning tells us that, despire the overtures of mass-media, even the materially rich among us still long for the experiential.

The sun on your face, playing with your children, staring at a fire until late into the night, sitting still in the forest listening to the wind rush through aspen leaves, talking with friends, laying on your back in a meadow and watching the clouds pass above you. All of these things are free--they require only time. Hunter-gatherers around the world spend, on average, less than 20 hours a week "working". The rest of their time was available for the experiential, the "finer things" in life. Perhaps this is why anthropologist Marshal Sahlins calls them "The Original Affluent Society", or why Paul Shepard says that humanity's time in the "hamlet economy" was the best it ever had.

The finer things in life are nothing more than a connection and a oneness with those things that modern culture insists remain separate or "sacred". This connection is available to all of us. Reconnecting to the finer things in life is not dependent on success within the modern commercial economy...on the contrary, my good friend, this reconnection requires that we take a new--or is it old?--approach to life. This is vernacular zen.