I've just come across this very interesting idea in a book, which is to privatize marriage.More specifically, that would mean removing the terms marriage, married, husband, wife, spouses and the like from any laws or government policies. Marriages would be performed and recognised by private organisations alone, with no influence whatsoever from and on the state.
To motivate this chance, the authors first dwell into the very meaning of marriage. Curiously enough, just a few weeks ago I'd seens this TED talk on "The lost art of democratic debate" where the speaker stands behind the idea that, in order to argue about moral and justice over any activity or entity, one must first medidate on that activity or entity's essential nature, its purpose. In the particular case of marriage, we clearly have a problem of ambiguity or disparity. Marriage is a symbol of union, of affection, of love. On the other hand, it is also a civil state grating its holders special benefits, including but not limited to economical ones. This mess is the source of much of the controversy surrounding marriage nowadays. Does the state have anything to do with my love for someone? Does the catholic church have anything to do with how much taxes I pay?
Take same-sex marriage for instance. Some private entities, such as the catholic church, want to reserve the right to decide who can get married while people feel that being deprived of the possibility to marry is an unfair source of discrimination, due to the social nature of the cerimony. Privatization would solve this issue. Private entities would keep the right to choose which marriages to recognise but, since there is no public recognition of that status, no harm would from that. A tennis club could decide to only hold and recognise as valid marriages the ones involving two professional players. Whatever. For the state, one could have a different status linked only to legal privileges/duties. In fact, I believe Portugal already has something of the sort called União de Facto, although I don't think it comes with the same package of rights/responsabilities as traditional marriage.
This would solve a very silly trait of current marriages, which is to mix taxes with love or union. In fact, as the authors point out, no sane people would come up with marriages as they are, were they invented today.
Still, we can go a bit further. Let's focus on the public part of the now divided marriage, hereon named union. Should it inherit all responsabilities and rights that marriages are entitled to this days? Perhaps not.
Some of these are related to sharing goods and responsibilities; these should probably stick. For instance, when a spouse has a dementia the other is entitled to take some decisions for him. When one of them dies the other has a share of this inheritance. These kind of properties would still make sense in the union entity.
Others, however, are directly related to economical issues. Consider, for example, some kinds of tax reductions that married couples are entitled to. Should this be kept? The state should only provide tax reductions, or other kinds of economical incentives, to behaviours that are worth encouraging, from the state's perspective. Should the state care about people being together? Well, if we consider that the state's ultimate goal is to make everyone happy and that couples are happier than single people ( are they? ) then we could argue it should. Still, I believe you'll agree with me when I say that's a long shot. What the state should, and does care about, are birth rates. Marriage was once (a long time ago, in a kingdom far, far away...) connected to having children and it thus made sense to encourage it. Nowadays, you can have marriages without children and children without marriages. You can even have both at the same time! Moreover, many countries (such as Portugal actually) allow same-sex marriages but do not allow those couples to adopt children or give birth by artificial means (in the case of women). In this situation it would not make sense, in my opinion, to give any economical incentive for unions.
Marriage will probably never be privatized in the terms proposed, since it is a very touch subject (which politicians often want to avoid). And yet, perhaps it should...
Filipe Baptista de Morais
terça-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2013
sexta-feira, 15 de fevereiro de 2013
The Wisdom of Crowds
Some time ago I came across a book which, I dare say, revived my faith in Humanity. We all know that news tend to be pessimistic, in the sense that they depicture people's mistakes more often (and far brighter) than what they do well. Moreover, positive remarks are usually restricted to the very best in any given activity; it's no surprise that we, the John Does of this world, do not find them flattering. Adding up to the pot, I've read so much about irrationalities and biases in our thinking that made me wonder why did we manage to survive so far. This Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki, is heart warming in the way it reveals the potential we all share. If not alone, then together.
The main idea behind the book is in fact quite simple: given a (not necessarily large) number of people, their average prediction/decision is almost alwaTys better than most of their individual ones. Most strikingly, it is also quite often better than the one picked by the smartest of them! Note that, by average, I mean aggregated in an adequate way; similarly, the term smart was also employed quite loosely but I believe you got the picture.
From guessing the number of beans in a jar, predicting sports outcomes, evaluating shares in stock markets or finding a lost submarine the author presents us with a wide and interesting variety of corroborative examples. Oddly enough, the very first example depicted in the book came from one trying to demonstrate its very opposite: the stupidity of crowds.
Obviously, there are some underlying assumptions. The wisdom of crows does not apply to every possible subject, although it appears to be remarkably robust to environment complexity and lack of information. There are conditions that must be met, such as independence of thought/action, the existence of an adequate aggregation function and coherent responses (that is, people must act in conformity with their beliefs and not try to play politics). Its application to decision making also raises other issues, such as responsibility and accountability. Still, it is clear that, if used with parcimony and awareness, the wisdom of crowds has plenty of applications.
The last chapter talks about the implications of the wisdom and its assumptions in democracy, and the reasons why it often fails. Hopefully by now I've made a compelling enough argument for you to go buy the book. If not, well, I guess I'm not as good a writer as Surowiecki is.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
The main idea behind the book is in fact quite simple: given a (not necessarily large) number of people, their average prediction/decision is almost alwaTys better than most of their individual ones. Most strikingly, it is also quite often better than the one picked by the smartest of them! Note that, by average, I mean aggregated in an adequate way; similarly, the term smart was also employed quite loosely but I believe you got the picture.
From guessing the number of beans in a jar, predicting sports outcomes, evaluating shares in stock markets or finding a lost submarine the author presents us with a wide and interesting variety of corroborative examples. Oddly enough, the very first example depicted in the book came from one trying to demonstrate its very opposite: the stupidity of crowds.
Obviously, there are some underlying assumptions. The wisdom of crows does not apply to every possible subject, although it appears to be remarkably robust to environment complexity and lack of information. There are conditions that must be met, such as independence of thought/action, the existence of an adequate aggregation function and coherent responses (that is, people must act in conformity with their beliefs and not try to play politics). Its application to decision making also raises other issues, such as responsibility and accountability. Still, it is clear that, if used with parcimony and awareness, the wisdom of crowds has plenty of applications.
The last chapter talks about the implications of the wisdom and its assumptions in democracy, and the reasons why it often fails. Hopefully by now I've made a compelling enough argument for you to go buy the book. If not, well, I guess I'm not as good a writer as Surowiecki is.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
sexta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2013
Polémica
O Público publicou há pouco tempo uma notícia em que referia que o "Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração de Lisboa (ISCAL) e
o Instituto Politécnico de Leiria estão a subir as médias aos
estudantes que terminem os respectivos cursos dentro do tempo previsto". Esta notícia gerou intensa polémica e reacções intempestivas de parte a parte. Dada a sua Natureza e a interessante troca de argumentos de parte a parte pareceu-me que valeria a pena comentar este assunto. Se quiserem podem ler a notícia aqui.
Em primeiro lugar gostaria de dizer que, na minha opinião, não há caso para tanto alarido e preocupação, relativamente à "injustiça na entrada do mercado de trabalho" que tantos contestam. Isto porque os empregadores não se guiam única, exclusiva e cegamente pelas médias dos seus candidatos; far from it. É até sabido que muitas empresas dão preferências a estudantes de certas instituições, às quais atribuem credibilidade, em prol de outras. Ou à instituição da qual são provenientes. Ou àquela em que o primo por acaso trabalha. Ou simplesmente àquela que se encontra mais próxima do seu local de trabalho. Tudo isto é natural e dilui essa "injustiça", a existir. É certo que há casos, nomeadamente concursos públicos a bolsas de investigação, em que a média é o único determinante. No entanto, mais uma vez, não considero que esta notícia seja caso para grande alarme nesse âmbito. Isto porque há muitos outros factores que influenciam tanto ou mais a média. Não quero com isto afirmar que há faculdades que dão melhores notas que outras (nem que não as há; quem tiver esses dados que os comente), simplesmente pretendo salientar que as notas atribuídas a um aluno são extremamente relativas. Sendo eu próprio estudante Universitário posso comentar que, em cadeiras onde há alternância de Professores, é muito frequente haver (altas) oscilações nas notas de semestre para semestre. E não estou aqui a falar de 2 décimas. Parece-me portanto que também não é por aí que o caso se torna escandaloso.
Estas medidas de "incentivo" são sim dignas críticas mas porque, a meu ver, simplesmente não fazem qualquer sentido. Em primeiro lugar as notas de um aluno são, idealmente, um reflexo do conhecimento e capacidades que ele obteve/demonstrou. Não devem por isso ser adulteradas sob o pretexto de o incentivar. Em segundo lugar defendo que, sejam de que tipo forem, os incentivos apenas devem ser atribuídos a quem se destaque pela positiva. "Incentivar" os alunos que sejam aprovados a todas as cadeiras de um semestre ou que concluam a licenciatura em três ano é equivalente a dizer que tal não seria esperado deles, que é uma espécie de achievement. Ser aprovado a cadeiras e concluir o curso no tempo esperado deveriam ser a norma, e não a excepção. Isto é mandar uma mensagem clara aos estudantes de que apenas se conta com a mediocridade. De notar que este raciocínio em nada se prende com o tipo de incentivos utilizados, nem com as taxas de aprovação das cadeiras/cursos em causa. Ainda que apenas 1% dos estudantes concluí-se o a licenciatura no tempo previsto continuaria a defender que não faria sentido incentivá-los por isso. Finalmente acho que o 3º tipo de incentivo referido ("Quando a média do estudante for superior a 14, há ainda um incremento de meio valor na classificação final") merece um comentário especial. Subir a média de um aluno por este ter uma boa média é, perdoem-me a expressão, estúpido. Não faz qualquer tipo de sentido. É descaracterizar e retirar todo o sentido à média.
De modo a clarificar a minha posição, gostaria de salientar que não sou de todo contra o uso de incentivos aos estudantes exemplares. Não concordo (de todo) é com esta noção de exemplar ou, no último caso, com o tipo de incentivo usados. Ofereçam propinas, livros, cheques FNAC ou bilhetes para o Sporting. Os Presidentes de ambos os institutos justificaram as duas decisões referindo que são um incentivo aos estudantes a terminarem os estudos no tempo previsto, reduzindo assim os custos para o Estado. Isto é, na minha opinião, uma barata e demagógica tentativa de apelar ao sentido económico das pessoas que, neste tempo de crise, tão sensível se encontra. Não misturem alhos com bugalhos.
Finalmente gostaria ainda de aproveitar para comentar a reacção da Direcção da Associação de Estudantes do Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração de Lisboa (AEISCAL) à notícia do Público. Podem consultá-la aqui. Não vou criticar a sua posição, dado que já exprimi a minha opinião quanto aos incentivos usados. Critico sim o tipo de argumentos utilizados que, apesar de serem empregues com frequência e geralmente até bem aceites, são a meu ver falaciosos. Em primeiro lugar, o eterno argumento "ah, mas já se faz assim há muito tempo" (neste caso três anos). Nem tudo o que fez foi bem feito, tal como é certo que nem tudo o que se fará o será. Mas esse tipo de raciocínio apenas leva à perpetuação de erros. Em seguida, o talvez ainda mais típico "ah mas toda a gente faz!". Não sei se é verdade se não, já que não referiram quais as Instituições do Ensino Superior que o fazem. Sei que a minha não faz. Mas ainda que acreditando nisso (não há razões para não o fazer creio) temos que concordar que é um argumento fraquíssimo e, até, algo infantil. Apenas me faz lembrar as crianças que, ao serem apanhadas a fazer algum disparate, denunciam tudo e todos na sua tentativa de se ilibar. No caso das crianças muitas vezes tiram daí algum benefício: sempre arranjam companhia para o castigo. No caso da AEISCAL não percebo realmente o que pretendiam.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
Em primeiro lugar gostaria de dizer que, na minha opinião, não há caso para tanto alarido e preocupação, relativamente à "injustiça na entrada do mercado de trabalho" que tantos contestam. Isto porque os empregadores não se guiam única, exclusiva e cegamente pelas médias dos seus candidatos; far from it. É até sabido que muitas empresas dão preferências a estudantes de certas instituições, às quais atribuem credibilidade, em prol de outras. Ou à instituição da qual são provenientes. Ou àquela em que o primo por acaso trabalha. Ou simplesmente àquela que se encontra mais próxima do seu local de trabalho. Tudo isto é natural e dilui essa "injustiça", a existir. É certo que há casos, nomeadamente concursos públicos a bolsas de investigação, em que a média é o único determinante. No entanto, mais uma vez, não considero que esta notícia seja caso para grande alarme nesse âmbito. Isto porque há muitos outros factores que influenciam tanto ou mais a média. Não quero com isto afirmar que há faculdades que dão melhores notas que outras (nem que não as há; quem tiver esses dados que os comente), simplesmente pretendo salientar que as notas atribuídas a um aluno são extremamente relativas. Sendo eu próprio estudante Universitário posso comentar que, em cadeiras onde há alternância de Professores, é muito frequente haver (altas) oscilações nas notas de semestre para semestre. E não estou aqui a falar de 2 décimas. Parece-me portanto que também não é por aí que o caso se torna escandaloso.
Estas medidas de "incentivo" são sim dignas críticas mas porque, a meu ver, simplesmente não fazem qualquer sentido. Em primeiro lugar as notas de um aluno são, idealmente, um reflexo do conhecimento e capacidades que ele obteve/demonstrou. Não devem por isso ser adulteradas sob o pretexto de o incentivar. Em segundo lugar defendo que, sejam de que tipo forem, os incentivos apenas devem ser atribuídos a quem se destaque pela positiva. "Incentivar" os alunos que sejam aprovados a todas as cadeiras de um semestre ou que concluam a licenciatura em três ano é equivalente a dizer que tal não seria esperado deles, que é uma espécie de achievement. Ser aprovado a cadeiras e concluir o curso no tempo esperado deveriam ser a norma, e não a excepção. Isto é mandar uma mensagem clara aos estudantes de que apenas se conta com a mediocridade. De notar que este raciocínio em nada se prende com o tipo de incentivos utilizados, nem com as taxas de aprovação das cadeiras/cursos em causa. Ainda que apenas 1% dos estudantes concluí-se o a licenciatura no tempo previsto continuaria a defender que não faria sentido incentivá-los por isso. Finalmente acho que o 3º tipo de incentivo referido ("Quando a média do estudante for superior a 14, há ainda um incremento de meio valor na classificação final") merece um comentário especial. Subir a média de um aluno por este ter uma boa média é, perdoem-me a expressão, estúpido. Não faz qualquer tipo de sentido. É descaracterizar e retirar todo o sentido à média.
De modo a clarificar a minha posição, gostaria de salientar que não sou de todo contra o uso de incentivos aos estudantes exemplares. Não concordo (de todo) é com esta noção de exemplar ou, no último caso, com o tipo de incentivo usados. Ofereçam propinas, livros, cheques FNAC ou bilhetes para o Sporting. Os Presidentes de ambos os institutos justificaram as duas decisões referindo que são um incentivo aos estudantes a terminarem os estudos no tempo previsto, reduzindo assim os custos para o Estado. Isto é, na minha opinião, uma barata e demagógica tentativa de apelar ao sentido económico das pessoas que, neste tempo de crise, tão sensível se encontra. Não misturem alhos com bugalhos.
Finalmente gostaria ainda de aproveitar para comentar a reacção da Direcção da Associação de Estudantes do Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração de Lisboa (AEISCAL) à notícia do Público. Podem consultá-la aqui. Não vou criticar a sua posição, dado que já exprimi a minha opinião quanto aos incentivos usados. Critico sim o tipo de argumentos utilizados que, apesar de serem empregues com frequência e geralmente até bem aceites, são a meu ver falaciosos. Em primeiro lugar, o eterno argumento "ah, mas já se faz assim há muito tempo" (neste caso três anos). Nem tudo o que fez foi bem feito, tal como é certo que nem tudo o que se fará o será. Mas esse tipo de raciocínio apenas leva à perpetuação de erros. Em seguida, o talvez ainda mais típico "ah mas toda a gente faz!". Não sei se é verdade se não, já que não referiram quais as Instituições do Ensino Superior que o fazem. Sei que a minha não faz. Mas ainda que acreditando nisso (não há razões para não o fazer creio) temos que concordar que é um argumento fraquíssimo e, até, algo infantil. Apenas me faz lembrar as crianças que, ao serem apanhadas a fazer algum disparate, denunciam tudo e todos na sua tentativa de se ilibar. No caso das crianças muitas vezes tiram daí algum benefício: sempre arranjam companhia para o castigo. No caso da AEISCAL não percebo realmente o que pretendiam.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
terça-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2013
Science Fiction
Two years ago I had the pleasure to take a short course entitled "How Physics Inspires Science Fiction" at the Vienna University of Technology. Later if suffered a subtle change towards the more accurate "How Science Inspires Science Fiction". Although it might seem a say-nothing title with the intent of coating a do-nothing course (which would still make an excellent excuse to travel to Vienna) the course revealed itself to be surprisingly interesting.
As the title suggests, the course was about the way actual/real Science influences Science Fiction. I was amazed to discover that many authors are extremely meticulous when writing their fiction stories, constraining them with the laws of Physics and others. Two examples, Rendezvous With Rama and The Wind From The Sun immediately come to mind. But if the stories are so accurate in Scientific terms, then why are they considered Science Fiction?
Catch is, even though the behaviour of objects (in its most general meaning) appears to be correct, there may be unfeasible underlying assumptions. An author may, for instance, speak about a realistic space ship which would cost 1e20€ to build, or made of materials with excessively high welding temperatures. In this sense, Science Fiction strolls ahead of Science, waiting for new technologies and procedures to make it possible.
Another possibility is to leave unmentioned important details (the ones that make something unthinkable at the time of writing), thus avoiding the necessity of lying / making things up. This is even more interesting, in that it allows the author to predict events far more distant in the future. I believe this to be the case of Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea, as well as others.
In both cases it is clear that the inverse relation also exists; that is, one could take a course on "How Science Fiction Inspires Science". I was therefore excited to wait and see any of those stories come true, wondering how long it would take. Turns out the future was much closer than I'd thought.
The Wind From The Sun, already refered to hereabove, fantasised about space ships powered by solar energy, through the use of solar sails (thus the wind in the title). Believe it or not, a solar plane such as that already exists. The Solar Impulse is capable of carrying one passenger and has already proved itself capable of flying day and night (26 consecutive hours) without fuel. Current challenge is to achieve an all-around the globe travel in 2015. You can check the project here; I recommend watching some of the videos with the project's dreamers. They are truly inspiring.
So let's not make the same mistake as Philipp von Jolly when he stated that " (...) almost everything is already discovered (...) ". If running out of ideas, just pick a book and make it true.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
As the title suggests, the course was about the way actual/real Science influences Science Fiction. I was amazed to discover that many authors are extremely meticulous when writing their fiction stories, constraining them with the laws of Physics and others. Two examples, Rendezvous With Rama and The Wind From The Sun immediately come to mind. But if the stories are so accurate in Scientific terms, then why are they considered Science Fiction?
Catch is, even though the behaviour of objects (in its most general meaning) appears to be correct, there may be unfeasible underlying assumptions. An author may, for instance, speak about a realistic space ship which would cost 1e20€ to build, or made of materials with excessively high welding temperatures. In this sense, Science Fiction strolls ahead of Science, waiting for new technologies and procedures to make it possible.
Another possibility is to leave unmentioned important details (the ones that make something unthinkable at the time of writing), thus avoiding the necessity of lying / making things up. This is even more interesting, in that it allows the author to predict events far more distant in the future. I believe this to be the case of Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea, as well as others.
In both cases it is clear that the inverse relation also exists; that is, one could take a course on "How Science Fiction Inspires Science". I was therefore excited to wait and see any of those stories come true, wondering how long it would take. Turns out the future was much closer than I'd thought.
So let's not make the same mistake as Philipp von Jolly when he stated that " (...) almost everything is already discovered (...) ". If running out of ideas, just pick a book and make it true.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
segunda-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2013
Strike
The number of labour strikes that took place in Portugal over the last couple of years is, without a doubt, astonishing. The phenomenon is certainly related to the recent economical crisis. Perhaps we should rather say the acknowledgement of the crisis, which might be far more ancient in itself. Either way strikes are a natural response to the decay in work conditions in a democratic regime. But will they actually lead us anywhere (good)?
Although some might believe that the drop in work conditions are due to their bosses' pure evilness, I for one am firmly convinced that it is rather linked to the companies' bad finantial situation. Or the state's for that matter. And obviously a strike will hardly help a struggling company's efforts; in fact it will most likely make it worse. Being a control engineering student I can't help but shiver at the thought of such positive feedback. And we all know know major economical consequences can derive from minor issues, when such loops are in place.
Still, that is no reason for not joining a strike. After all a strike aims to reveal the workers' discontent towards something they find unfair; the company's finantial situation is, from this perspective, irrelevant. Moreover, from a purely rational point of view it is advantageous for each single individual to join the strike, although that might not be the case for the collective (more on this on a coming soon post). So the problem is not the people who join the strikes; instead, it lies inside the mechanism itself. A self-feeding reaction with negative consequences should be avoided by construction.
There are other reasons to consider strikes a poorly-designed mechanisms. For starters, its working principles. Strikes intend to cause social unresst not by making people aware of the workers' conditions but simply by causing upset. In other words, the impact of a strike does not depend on how valid the workers' point of view is but rather on how many they people they can annoy. This clearly doesn't make any sense. Ironically, the highest impact strikes also make people angry at the workers themselves, finding their struggle (or at least their means) less legit. Nevertheless, social pressure and unrest will still make them the most successful in terms of forcing an executive decision which leads us to what seems like a silly antithesis: the most supported strikes are the ones people less agree with.
Another apparent debatable trait is the repeatability. If a strike for reason A does not succeed in reaching its goal then it is simply repeated the next week or month. And the one after. At some point it starts sounding dangerously close to blackmail.
Then where does the solution lie? Abolishing strikes does not seem to be the answer. It should be somewhere in the middle (as it always is), a clever reforming or modernization of this complaint mechanism. I speak of modernization because it seems to me that strikes were the perfect (perhaps the only) alternative when workers were isolated for their clients and the outside world, rendering them easy prey for exploiting bosses. Nowadays, with mobile phones and news channels and internet it is not all obvious (at least to me) that this is a perfect-so-do-not-touch mechanism.
In particular, I believe that a renovated strike must have an awareness raising component. This could be done quite easily, by having the workers show up at their posts (or somewhere else if the job does not require direct contact with the general public) and, instead of doing their jobs, spread information on their cause through fliers or their vocal cords. Please note that shouting catchy phrases with no practical meaning whatsoever is not constructive criticism. This would also be a killing blow for the somewhat public belief that many join a strike just to have a day off at the beach. Most certainly other improvements could be done; if we manage to re-invent strikes so that they do not imply loss of productivity (with all its negative consequences both for the company and its clients) then we'd be on the right path.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
Although some might believe that the drop in work conditions are due to their bosses' pure evilness, I for one am firmly convinced that it is rather linked to the companies' bad finantial situation. Or the state's for that matter. And obviously a strike will hardly help a struggling company's efforts; in fact it will most likely make it worse. Being a control engineering student I can't help but shiver at the thought of such positive feedback. And we all know know major economical consequences can derive from minor issues, when such loops are in place.
Still, that is no reason for not joining a strike. After all a strike aims to reveal the workers' discontent towards something they find unfair; the company's finantial situation is, from this perspective, irrelevant. Moreover, from a purely rational point of view it is advantageous for each single individual to join the strike, although that might not be the case for the collective (more on this on a coming soon post). So the problem is not the people who join the strikes; instead, it lies inside the mechanism itself. A self-feeding reaction with negative consequences should be avoided by construction.
There are other reasons to consider strikes a poorly-designed mechanisms. For starters, its working principles. Strikes intend to cause social unresst not by making people aware of the workers' conditions but simply by causing upset. In other words, the impact of a strike does not depend on how valid the workers' point of view is but rather on how many they people they can annoy. This clearly doesn't make any sense. Ironically, the highest impact strikes also make people angry at the workers themselves, finding their struggle (or at least their means) less legit. Nevertheless, social pressure and unrest will still make them the most successful in terms of forcing an executive decision which leads us to what seems like a silly antithesis: the most supported strikes are the ones people less agree with.
Another apparent debatable trait is the repeatability. If a strike for reason A does not succeed in reaching its goal then it is simply repeated the next week or month. And the one after. At some point it starts sounding dangerously close to blackmail.
Then where does the solution lie? Abolishing strikes does not seem to be the answer. It should be somewhere in the middle (as it always is), a clever reforming or modernization of this complaint mechanism. I speak of modernization because it seems to me that strikes were the perfect (perhaps the only) alternative when workers were isolated for their clients and the outside world, rendering them easy prey for exploiting bosses. Nowadays, with mobile phones and news channels and internet it is not all obvious (at least to me) that this is a perfect-so-do-not-touch mechanism.
In particular, I believe that a renovated strike must have an awareness raising component. This could be done quite easily, by having the workers show up at their posts (or somewhere else if the job does not require direct contact with the general public) and, instead of doing their jobs, spread information on their cause through fliers or their vocal cords. Please note that shouting catchy phrases with no practical meaning whatsoever is not constructive criticism. This would also be a killing blow for the somewhat public belief that many join a strike just to have a day off at the beach. Most certainly other improvements could be done; if we manage to re-invent strikes so that they do not imply loss of productivity (with all its negative consequences both for the company and its clients) then we'd be on the right path.
Filipe Baptista de Morais
domingo, 6 de janeiro de 2013
Underworld
A few years ago I was lucky enough to catch a glimpse of an interview with a fugitive from a prison camp in North Korea. His testimony seemed material taken from a book (perhaps a mixture of "Fahrenheit 911" and "1984"), or something you would read in a historical description of the 15th century. It's both shocking and unbelievable that things like that still happen. Here, now.
The man was born in prison, arrested (if you can apply the term to one who's never been free) for a long forgotten crime perpetrated by an unknown ancestor. He had no contact with the outside world, which he didn't even know existed. Forced labour and starvation were a constant, but there was no desire to escape since that was considered normal: it was all that he knew.
At age 14 he saw his brother and mother executed, charged of intenting to escape. He himself reported them to the guards. Why would he do that? Because that's what people did in his world: work, starve and rattle on the ones who carry dreams of freedom. It didn't seem sad or wrong at the time, it simply was what you were supposed to do. He was then tortured to make sure he didn't share the escape intents.
Years later he met a new prisoner, from China, who had so lived in the outside world. Marvelled by the stories of a place where you could eat as much as you wanted, he decided to escape with his friend. In the run for it, his companion got electrocuted to death by an electrified fence; he crawled his way to freedom over the dead body.
Now, a citizen of the free world, he tries to raise awareness for the situation in North Korea. He does not understand why Western news' channels are only concerned with the North Korea's head of state's new wife, while ignoring entirely the prisoner camps and the regime's opression. How can we possibly explain ourselves?
Filipe Baptista de Morais
The man was born in prison, arrested (if you can apply the term to one who's never been free) for a long forgotten crime perpetrated by an unknown ancestor. He had no contact with the outside world, which he didn't even know existed. Forced labour and starvation were a constant, but there was no desire to escape since that was considered normal: it was all that he knew.
At age 14 he saw his brother and mother executed, charged of intenting to escape. He himself reported them to the guards. Why would he do that? Because that's what people did in his world: work, starve and rattle on the ones who carry dreams of freedom. It didn't seem sad or wrong at the time, it simply was what you were supposed to do. He was then tortured to make sure he didn't share the escape intents.
Years later he met a new prisoner, from China, who had so lived in the outside world. Marvelled by the stories of a place where you could eat as much as you wanted, he decided to escape with his friend. In the run for it, his companion got electrocuted to death by an electrified fence; he crawled his way to freedom over the dead body.
Now, a citizen of the free world, he tries to raise awareness for the situation in North Korea. He does not understand why Western news' channels are only concerned with the North Korea's head of state's new wife, while ignoring entirely the prisoner camps and the regime's opression. How can we possibly explain ourselves?
Filipe Baptista de Morais
domingo, 23 de dezembro de 2012
Weakness of the Light
The other day I was struck by a somewhat strange thought: everyday, and without realising or caring about it, we face situations which could be considered highly dangerous, in the sense that a small deviation from the common behaviour of others' could lead to our death.
Let me explain. Think about everytime we cross a street with a green light. We walk right in front of some cars, waiting patiently for their light to turn green again, and we don't even blink. That doesn't give us any adrenaline, it doesn't feel dangerous at all. But truth is, should one of the driver decide to use the accelerator we'd be hit by a vehicle weighting hundreds of Kg and moving at a few dozens of Km/h, more than enough to put us out for good. And even we happily walk by a police officier and greet him with a smile, we never consider that he could kill us in a split second by drawing his gun and taking a shot. When we take a plane, some of us fear it might crash to some malfunctioning or due to bad weather, but who among us have ever worried about the pilot simply deciding to crash it? Those of you who've seen the movie The Happening surely remember how easy it is for one to take his own life, if you're willing and have the guts for it. Now imagine how much easier it is to take someone else's life.
This behaviour is both needed and usually logic. It is needed because we can't live in a steady state of stress. I mean, we couldn't take an exam worrying about whether or not the person next to us will suddenly bring up his pen and stab us in the eye. It is (usually) logic for two distinct motives: those kind of things usually do not happen, and there is no apparent reason for others to behave that way. Let's not linger on the first, since it only has to do with the frequency of uncommon events. The second one is the key assumption behind our behaviour; when it fails, everything stops making sense. This is way modern society is so vulnerable to acts of terrorism, be it a plane crashing on a building or some crazy shooter in a public facility. It's not that we aren't prepared for them, it's that we cannot be prepared for them. Why? Let's discuss it in detail.
There are two mechanisms that supposably prevent others from harming us. First is human empathy, the fact that (in theory) no human being would want to harm another one just for the sake it. The second one is the law, in particular the punishment that comes to those who disrespect it. Now, the first mechanism can be overcome either by sadicism or some twisted perspective of purpose. Although we would not kill for money, some people would. And in fact they do, everyday. And while we see no point in the murder of thousand innocent bystanders through a terrorist attack some believe that a holy crusade is reason enough. And it should be noted that our ancestors also did think that way, a few centuries ago. The problem with the second is that it works a posteriori; the punishment only comes after the act. This means that, should the perpetrator believe that he can get away with it or find the benefits worth the punishment (thus acting like some kind of martyr) he will go through with it.
To exemplify our vulnerability, let's consider that, for some reason, we fear that someone might enter a hospital and stab the secretary, or a doctor. What can you do about it? Well, you can put some extra security at the entrance. But their purpose will solely to be to arrest anyone who actually draws a knife, and it's not likely they'll be able to do it before the assassin makes a kill. Their main purpose is to disuade, but that is not enough against those who don't care about the consequences of their acts. The solution? Perhaps strip-searching everyone who wants to come in, and shooting down those who don't co-operate. Obviously this is not feasible/desirable in a free country, and that's the point precisely. The bad guys will always have the upper hand, since they play by different rules: they are far more unconstrained.
It is interesting that this fact is well known and visited in children's or otherwise considered "simple" movies and stories. Think about a classic good vs evil, light vs darkness kind of stories. One recurrent aspect is that the evil gang is stronger due to the use of forbidden techniques, or playing dirty. In Star Wars, the Sith can use the Dark Side of the Force. In Harry Potter stories the dressed-in-black bad guys (I can't recall their name?) use forbidden magic. In various children stories the evil characters take advantage of the good ones' empathy and/or sense of honour, for example by taking hostages and making demands.
This is why some stories include an unconstrained yet good character, a light-bringer who uses everything at his disposal to fight the darkness. In order to drive way from children stories I'll give Jack Bauer from 24 as an example. These characters are often rogue fighters, misunderstood or despised by the ones they fight for due to their methods. And they should, otherwise we'd fall in the fight fire with fire problem. Hopefully one day we'll see a world where good no longer means weak.
Let me explain. Think about everytime we cross a street with a green light. We walk right in front of some cars, waiting patiently for their light to turn green again, and we don't even blink. That doesn't give us any adrenaline, it doesn't feel dangerous at all. But truth is, should one of the driver decide to use the accelerator we'd be hit by a vehicle weighting hundreds of Kg and moving at a few dozens of Km/h, more than enough to put us out for good. And even we happily walk by a police officier and greet him with a smile, we never consider that he could kill us in a split second by drawing his gun and taking a shot. When we take a plane, some of us fear it might crash to some malfunctioning or due to bad weather, but who among us have ever worried about the pilot simply deciding to crash it? Those of you who've seen the movie The Happening surely remember how easy it is for one to take his own life, if you're willing and have the guts for it. Now imagine how much easier it is to take someone else's life.
This behaviour is both needed and usually logic. It is needed because we can't live in a steady state of stress. I mean, we couldn't take an exam worrying about whether or not the person next to us will suddenly bring up his pen and stab us in the eye. It is (usually) logic for two distinct motives: those kind of things usually do not happen, and there is no apparent reason for others to behave that way. Let's not linger on the first, since it only has to do with the frequency of uncommon events. The second one is the key assumption behind our behaviour; when it fails, everything stops making sense. This is way modern society is so vulnerable to acts of terrorism, be it a plane crashing on a building or some crazy shooter in a public facility. It's not that we aren't prepared for them, it's that we cannot be prepared for them. Why? Let's discuss it in detail.
There are two mechanisms that supposably prevent others from harming us. First is human empathy, the fact that (in theory) no human being would want to harm another one just for the sake it. The second one is the law, in particular the punishment that comes to those who disrespect it. Now, the first mechanism can be overcome either by sadicism or some twisted perspective of purpose. Although we would not kill for money, some people would. And in fact they do, everyday. And while we see no point in the murder of thousand innocent bystanders through a terrorist attack some believe that a holy crusade is reason enough. And it should be noted that our ancestors also did think that way, a few centuries ago. The problem with the second is that it works a posteriori; the punishment only comes after the act. This means that, should the perpetrator believe that he can get away with it or find the benefits worth the punishment (thus acting like some kind of martyr) he will go through with it.
To exemplify our vulnerability, let's consider that, for some reason, we fear that someone might enter a hospital and stab the secretary, or a doctor. What can you do about it? Well, you can put some extra security at the entrance. But their purpose will solely to be to arrest anyone who actually draws a knife, and it's not likely they'll be able to do it before the assassin makes a kill. Their main purpose is to disuade, but that is not enough against those who don't care about the consequences of their acts. The solution? Perhaps strip-searching everyone who wants to come in, and shooting down those who don't co-operate. Obviously this is not feasible/desirable in a free country, and that's the point precisely. The bad guys will always have the upper hand, since they play by different rules: they are far more unconstrained.
It is interesting that this fact is well known and visited in children's or otherwise considered "simple" movies and stories. Think about a classic good vs evil, light vs darkness kind of stories. One recurrent aspect is that the evil gang is stronger due to the use of forbidden techniques, or playing dirty. In Star Wars, the Sith can use the Dark Side of the Force. In Harry Potter stories the dressed-in-black bad guys (I can't recall their name?) use forbidden magic. In various children stories the evil characters take advantage of the good ones' empathy and/or sense of honour, for example by taking hostages and making demands.
This is why some stories include an unconstrained yet good character, a light-bringer who uses everything at his disposal to fight the darkness. In order to drive way from children stories I'll give Jack Bauer from 24 as an example. These characters are often rogue fighters, misunderstood or despised by the ones they fight for due to their methods. And they should, otherwise we'd fall in the fight fire with fire problem. Hopefully one day we'll see a world where good no longer means weak.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
