Cal Thomas recently called attention to the obvious legislative problem in the United States, indicating that the source of present ills lies more in the people than in their political representatives in Congress. Though blame certainly can be placed in both camps and we are pressed on all sides by unresolved issues, there is another huge factor that few dare to call out, even if they are aware of its reach: computers.
Why are issues unresolved? There are conceivably many political, economic, and social reasons, but a very big "elephant" is standing in the way, seldom called to account but constantly nourished. The identity of the culprit? Technology, or, more to the point, technologists. It is not really them, it is their attitudes. I will bring it up later; it is a paradigm thing. As in most issues of this kind, most computer and networking people cannot be called to account, as they are simply "doing their jobs". On the whole, however the technological beast exists for the purpose of extracting maintaining a strong hegemony (unbridled control) over computer functionality. Among other things, this allows them to extract outsized amounts of money from the rest of us.
In other cases, it allows certain of them to "play Kissinger" and find other ways to wield unearned power, as the young Mr. Snowden has recently done. An individual with no political credentials other than that he inexplicably had access to many sensitive documents and had no scruples in stealing them, he created a stir, citing a high-profile problem with no light to shed on the issue other than to personify it. I know, I know, privacy concerns were at stake, which is in large part the problem I referenced earlier. You probably know the story: They hadn't even "vetted" him properly, interviewing only his mother and girlfriend before offering him access to the biggest, most sensitive trove of sensitive information in the world. Obviously, the people responsible to do the task had the option of not doing so. Does that make sense to anyone?
Systems are both ineffectual and sloppy. Take the problems with the PPACA/Obamacare's now-famous website. Despite a reported budget of $400 million, by many accounts, the site "does not work". There are those that say that at times one cannot even log into the system.
Why is there any kind of problem with the Obamacare health exchange web site in the first place? There is no new technology to be deployed, no need to test any machine or operating system or database or web tools. This is all "off-the-rack" stuff. All that is being presented is a new application of an old idea and not really the most complicated one at that. There is no real attempt to "fix" the healthcare system", just to change who pays for it. There are systems aplenty that have been carrying out that task for decades. Why should there be even a shadow of a fault?
One effect of such failures is that interest in filling in the gaps by knowledgeable people diminishes with time. People with something to offer in terms of needed functionality will, with each abortive stage in the process, think twice about helping. Eventually they will walk away if they were even asked to help in the first place.
Think of how the politicians must feel, particularly the ones that want the health payment reform plan to succeed. They would have to be more than a little despondent with the news of the system's shortfalls, feeling powerless. Of course, their political rivals on this point would be feeling more than a little happy about the very public struggle to "make the site work". Amid the chaos, some forms of sabotage cannot be ruled out. If the opposing parties are involved in such a plan, they must also worry about their own programs being similarly blocked, technically-speaking. Such a condition speaks to concerns about the "bums" Mr. Thomas makes reference to, the current legislators. Upstanding, competent professionals would be little interested in such political "kabuki dances" even if sabotage were not a part of the equation. The "big elephant" and the inability to effectively deploy coherent plans would be discouraging to such "non-bum-like" potential representatives, but help to lure individuals with fewer scruples to the Congressional arena.
Another take-home message from the lumbering pachyderm in the room is this: If even such a simple task cannot be implemented, how could meaningful reforms be carried out with necessary relevance and nuance? The "government is inexorably doomed to be pathetic" message may play out politically back at home, but our needs lie far beyond the concept of distant, ineffectual government. The problem of government legitimacy must be resolved. In spite of Mr. Thomas' statements to the contrary, a frequent political refrain from some, the people certainly do need government. We all depend on good government.
Mr. Thomas says that people need to essentially forget government as the source of help and assistance and depend on themselves. This is true, to a point; We do need to contribute, to lend our native abilities and energies toward the general good, if not just for our own benefit. Family support is of critical importance in this process, but such is not available to everyone. We need better ways of learning just what our native abilities are, something that should be happening in the educational system, widely regarded as a government function. Unless a person is blessed with certain kinds of analytical and cognitive abilities, the educational system is likely to inform them mostly about what they are not very good at.
The greatest waste we face on that front is that we do not collectively benefit from the native abilities of every single person, not just people with natural abilities in mathematical and analytical areas. The self-made model holds that it would be better to have a person make french fries and be miserable when he or she could be a great artist or craftsman with appropriate identification, guidance, and assistance. Many of the "self-made" advocates benefit from family and socioeconomic benefits that they do not recognize or refuse to acknowledge.
One problem is that we discourage better ways of "making french fries" and the rest in order to "employ" a person. If we more rigorously pursued competitiveness and efficiency there would be more available resources to promote beneficial pursuits. The fact is, inefficiency is a kind of "Chinese handcuff" with regard to the general good. It does not provide value, particularly when it forces people to live in a "Joe vs the Volcano" lifestyle. Boring. Not fulfilling. Not productive.
The traditional self-made-man doctrine was never really true. Without the perquisites of government and the protection and guidance governments can provide, commerce would be virtually impossible. Who would regulate disputes? Who would protect intellectual property? Who would organize and provide for public goods? Who would educate the people? Who would provide for and maintain infrastructure? Who would fund and guide research for the general good? Who would keep the peace? Finally, who would protect the realm in times of crisis?
There are those that might say that such things ought to be turned over to Amazon and its kind, efficient organizations. Functions of the executive branch arguably already are being supported by such enterprises, the UPS's and FedEx's of this world and others. The question is, how can such kinds of services be carried out when the problem involves more than selling a discrete product and delivering packages? History has taught ugly lessons about governments that "make the trains run on time" but do not consider the broader needs of society and its many cultural requirements.
Many factors mitigate against success where critical technologies are not brought under tow, responding to the minute, specific needs of people and institutions, government agencies included. As to legislators, the experienced ones have faced political victory after victory that have turned into mush before the ink dried because of this problem. Government's inability to govern as a result has reached legendary proportions, and not in a good way. Part of what is called the conservative view is the presumption that we can all ignore an ineffectual national government, go home, and prosper locally. Since government is ineffective and ineffectual, they say we should punish it by shrinking its size.
This is a troublesome condition. Encouraged by the inability to get the machines to do what we want them to do, efforts to govern, collaborate, and optimizing activities are largely doomed. Who would compose a song that could never be sung, write book that could never be read, or cobble a shoe that could never be worn? Well, maybe one of these might be carried out for the sake of artistry, but not day-to-day, following the daily grind. So legislators are left to shadow box inside the constraints that the technologists allow. There probably would be less to argue about if plans could actually be carried out and government brought to high levels of functionality once fine-tuned plans were negotiated and clarified.
Are they really the bad guys, the technologists, or are they simply benefiting from the inevitable. Although magnificent instruments for computation and communications, are computers by their nature incapable of helping with the larger questions of complexity and scale that vex us? Must we forever doomed to "get our hopes up", only to have such hopes dashed by hemorrhaging flows of money, by unexplained lack of functionality, and by the machinations of smug technologists who have the audacity to smile about it all with little accountability?
If this is true, perhaps there are few policy options other than to muddle along, continuing to invest in forests of Post-it[tm] notes to fill in the gaps where we know what needs to be done but can't get the computers to do it.
Its not true.
The notion that it is IS the "ghost in the machine". How do I know? I've lived for the last twenty years knowing the answer. For awhile, I would knock on the doors of erstwhile technologists and technology companies with the message. Each time, I found myself figuratively "out in the parking lot picking gravel out of my teeth". This is to say that in no case did they want to hear what I had to say. One outgrowth of this is that they have no idea what the details of my message are, only rejecting out of hand the implications of my notion.
I even hired a New York boutique investment bank to represent me in presenting the message to the top thirty or so companies in the information technology business. We sent demonstration disks and all kinds of support materials to them. They didn't even want to meet. I did fly across the country for one meeting, but it turns out they were doing it as a favor to my banker.
My message was simple: People could make better systems if they could define them in their own way using simple tools. The tools in question needed to be valid, what you would call logically complete, not adding anything that was unnecessary. Such an environment should be whole and permanent, not being subject to system upgrades and new implementations.
This is pretty scary stuff, to be sure. I have learned over the years that making this case is a really good way to quiet down a crowd of computer people. In my case, I never have gotten further with these people. I have often wished that they would dare me to prove myself right or challenged me by proving me wrong. I did receive one question from a presentation that I made about ten years ago in a DARPA-sponsored conference (DARPA being the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Government) on making systems more relevant. I felt like kissing the guy. Just the one question, though, and it was on a secondary point.
As you can see, even they do not want to talk about the elephant. It is largely assumed, having been present in the computing world at least from the 1960s, when people started thinking about how to make computers more responsive. I have documented some cases when people have bumped into the issue.
We should do something about the apparent ghost in the machine. Victory on that score would prepare us and give us the confidence to clear up many other misunderstandings, as well.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
Why did Snowden have access in the first place?
Today's coverage of the Snowden dilemma outlines calls attention to a major source of technological failure, in short, the failure to classify effectively. The question has not been raised, at least not emphasized, since the young man in question called attention to himself by jumping ship on the US intelligence community. The question is this: How is it that a young, fairly junior technician was able to gain access to the treasure trove of data that he has laid claim to? What credentials allowed him to access such information? Was such a breathtaking act of confidence in this person justified in the first place? Was it necessary?
Not much has been disclosed as to his policy credentials. He did not graduate from a foreign policy program. He was not coached in the nuances of international diplomacy. His views were not tested nor was his understanding of important public and private issues and laws appropriately established. From what is known, we understand that he was brought into his privileged position based on technical credentials. He has been referred to as a hacker. Similarly, he is referred to as an analyst, having called himself a "technical wizard". He has a questionable academic history, where it looks like he misrepresented himself, at least according to his Wikipedia description.
Even assuming his background was as he originally indicated, isn't allowing someone with strictly technical credentials such access kin to providing a plumber to access to marriage counselling records or looking to that person for family financial guidance? What would there be in the training or preparation of a technician of this kind that to justify handling him such a treasure trove of sensitive information?
The rationale is likely a technical one. He understood "pipes" or what Castells refers to as "switches", the "privileged instruments of power" in a networked world. Such information is stored largely in documents, which are conveniently stored in file systems on the computers in question. To have access to such information someone simply needs to be able to get the directories and data types in question. Making sense of the contents of the documents is trivial. It is assumed that dangling such organized information, however sensitive, in reach of technicians, is a necessary evil. Somebody has to do it, so it is perhaps better to hire individuals with arcane knowledge of the labyrinths that are computers so that they will be "on your side" in the battle. The needed skill set to navigate the "dark alleys" is skewed toward the young, who have the time and the orientation to become hackers if not video game champions. It is thus important to give them access to all the keys, given their ability to probably take them on their own anyway.
The result is an awkward public spectacle, one that is possibly achieving one of his objectives in raising concerns for individual privacy and government legitimacy, but not necessarily in useful ways. The implications of international diplomacy and the concerns for individual privacy do intersect to some degree, but not necessarily in ways that Mr. Snowden and his supporters and compatriots imply or understand. There may be people engaged in international business activities that wander into communications with questionable parties from a national security standpoint, but it is doubtful that most of us do. The implication that most citizens are subject to investigation is disingenuous, absent some proof. Were Eric Snowden to want to make strong claims as to such indiscretions, he should have provided evidence of them. In this way, he could have teamed up with the injured parties to make the case for government wrongdoing. Powerful parties who had been injured in this way would be very useful allies; regular citizens similarly wronged may have been even more helpful in making the point. What we are left with, given Mr. Snowden's awkward flight, is a vague collection of ghosts and goblins of indefinite shape and magnitude. If peoples' rights, if not their interests, were harmed, how was it done; how could such conditions be avoided in the future? This is a critical domestic policy issue that is not necessarily aided by Mr. Snowden, if that was his goal in the first place.
The problem comes at a critical time with regard to the enormous flow of data and the issue of legitimate stewardship of it, whether by public or private institutions. In the face of this, one thing is certain: there is no going back. Given the benefits and enjoyments from big data in many respects, there is little call for a "no data" future, though there are many that have opted to minimize their online footprint. The phenomenon is not going to go away by any count; we simply need to learn how to do it better.
I once was told by a friend, a system, administrator, that there was no such thing as a secure system, that such a system was a "pipe dream". He indicated that if a typical hacker was to go after a system, there was no way that that person was going to fail. I agreed with him that there was no way that a system couldn't be "taken down" by denial of service. On the other hand, I said that a system with strong encryption, with good password management, with one open port (typically for web access) would be very difficult to compromise. He responded with, "What would be the fun in that? You couldn't do that because users demand applications that would make it impossible".
Hidden in the response is kind of a backhanded acknowledgement that such a system could be safe from intrusion. The point is that with each open port, systems become more like sieves; with each user login at the system level and "sandbox", the chances of a system breech are magnified. Thus, there are ways of substantially reducing the risk that are not widely deployed.
There is another issue, the way data is stored and managed. The document-centric approach as underscores the Snowden case is an "epistemological nightmare". By this, I mean that it provides sensitive information in contexts that "give away the store" to anyone with the time and inclination to read them. Storing such information in documents of this kind, and providing open access to them, is a crude and sloppy way of managing any information, let alone sensitive information with regard to privacy or secrecy..
Data should be stored in ways that keep intruders out, similar to what I described earlier with regard to systems. Lock up the database; encrypt the stack (or what would be typically called database tables). Only allow access to users with specific rights to see data in context -- as defined by analysts, experts, and authorities in the fields in question. Only provide access to people which legitimate credentials in the cases in question under controlled conditions. Make such authorization requirements multilevel in nature, requiring both authoritative and cognitive gateways, then only to specific, linked information. In such an environment, technologists could have access to the "pipes" to make sure the systems were working, but they could not see the data in either raw form or in terms of documents. Information and the contexts of that information would only be available on a "need to know" basis -- ever. Such conditions themselves could be managed using classification tools. By classification, I mean the "if p, then q" model of Aristotle, the universal classification structure. This can be done in what I refer to as "expressive" classification structures, or trees.
Thus, the Eric Snowden's of the world -- and any other technologists or others with incidental access to data -- would have no choice to disclose information that they had no right to from a cognitive or authoritative standpoint. They would be managing "pipes", not "switches", with no knowledge of what was passing through the secure conduits. Access to any and all data and its meaningful contexts would only be available as it was earned in the community of practice in question, which would control the expressive trees that would grant such access. Certainly, there would continue to be documents flowing throughout the network, but the sensitive ones would be far less likely to be stolen, certainly not in volume as is possible when they are stashed in directories or folders as is typically the case.
In such a regime, there could be breeches, but they would be much more limited in terms of scope and subject area. No one would be able to serve up the entire store of information, except in encrypted, unclassified forms that would be unintelligible. Under such a system, junior technicians could not take upon themselves outsized influence, wielding "instruments of power" beyond their comprehension. They could conceivable break ranks with their employers, but they would simply be out of a job.
In such an environment, how would our rights be protected? This would be a critical aspect of the aforementioned "switches". They would need to be controlled by the "communities of practice", the legitimate authorities and networks of people and organizations that earn our trust and their respective professional respect and standing. Such designations have social and political implications, as well as commercial aspects. Trust is the important factor, trust that must be earned, having been tested and found worthy. The Eric Snowdens are a bad bet in the first place.
Not much has been disclosed as to his policy credentials. He did not graduate from a foreign policy program. He was not coached in the nuances of international diplomacy. His views were not tested nor was his understanding of important public and private issues and laws appropriately established. From what is known, we understand that he was brought into his privileged position based on technical credentials. He has been referred to as a hacker. Similarly, he is referred to as an analyst, having called himself a "technical wizard". He has a questionable academic history, where it looks like he misrepresented himself, at least according to his Wikipedia description.
Even assuming his background was as he originally indicated, isn't allowing someone with strictly technical credentials such access kin to providing a plumber to access to marriage counselling records or looking to that person for family financial guidance? What would there be in the training or preparation of a technician of this kind that to justify handling him such a treasure trove of sensitive information?
The rationale is likely a technical one. He understood "pipes" or what Castells refers to as "switches", the "privileged instruments of power" in a networked world. Such information is stored largely in documents, which are conveniently stored in file systems on the computers in question. To have access to such information someone simply needs to be able to get the directories and data types in question. Making sense of the contents of the documents is trivial. It is assumed that dangling such organized information, however sensitive, in reach of technicians, is a necessary evil. Somebody has to do it, so it is perhaps better to hire individuals with arcane knowledge of the labyrinths that are computers so that they will be "on your side" in the battle. The needed skill set to navigate the "dark alleys" is skewed toward the young, who have the time and the orientation to become hackers if not video game champions. It is thus important to give them access to all the keys, given their ability to probably take them on their own anyway.
The result is an awkward public spectacle, one that is possibly achieving one of his objectives in raising concerns for individual privacy and government legitimacy, but not necessarily in useful ways. The implications of international diplomacy and the concerns for individual privacy do intersect to some degree, but not necessarily in ways that Mr. Snowden and his supporters and compatriots imply or understand. There may be people engaged in international business activities that wander into communications with questionable parties from a national security standpoint, but it is doubtful that most of us do. The implication that most citizens are subject to investigation is disingenuous, absent some proof. Were Eric Snowden to want to make strong claims as to such indiscretions, he should have provided evidence of them. In this way, he could have teamed up with the injured parties to make the case for government wrongdoing. Powerful parties who had been injured in this way would be very useful allies; regular citizens similarly wronged may have been even more helpful in making the point. What we are left with, given Mr. Snowden's awkward flight, is a vague collection of ghosts and goblins of indefinite shape and magnitude. If peoples' rights, if not their interests, were harmed, how was it done; how could such conditions be avoided in the future? This is a critical domestic policy issue that is not necessarily aided by Mr. Snowden, if that was his goal in the first place.
The problem comes at a critical time with regard to the enormous flow of data and the issue of legitimate stewardship of it, whether by public or private institutions. In the face of this, one thing is certain: there is no going back. Given the benefits and enjoyments from big data in many respects, there is little call for a "no data" future, though there are many that have opted to minimize their online footprint. The phenomenon is not going to go away by any count; we simply need to learn how to do it better.
I once was told by a friend, a system, administrator, that there was no such thing as a secure system, that such a system was a "pipe dream". He indicated that if a typical hacker was to go after a system, there was no way that that person was going to fail. I agreed with him that there was no way that a system couldn't be "taken down" by denial of service. On the other hand, I said that a system with strong encryption, with good password management, with one open port (typically for web access) would be very difficult to compromise. He responded with, "What would be the fun in that? You couldn't do that because users demand applications that would make it impossible".
Hidden in the response is kind of a backhanded acknowledgement that such a system could be safe from intrusion. The point is that with each open port, systems become more like sieves; with each user login at the system level and "sandbox", the chances of a system breech are magnified. Thus, there are ways of substantially reducing the risk that are not widely deployed.
There is another issue, the way data is stored and managed. The document-centric approach as underscores the Snowden case is an "epistemological nightmare". By this, I mean that it provides sensitive information in contexts that "give away the store" to anyone with the time and inclination to read them. Storing such information in documents of this kind, and providing open access to them, is a crude and sloppy way of managing any information, let alone sensitive information with regard to privacy or secrecy..
Data should be stored in ways that keep intruders out, similar to what I described earlier with regard to systems. Lock up the database; encrypt the stack (or what would be typically called database tables). Only allow access to users with specific rights to see data in context -- as defined by analysts, experts, and authorities in the fields in question. Only provide access to people which legitimate credentials in the cases in question under controlled conditions. Make such authorization requirements multilevel in nature, requiring both authoritative and cognitive gateways, then only to specific, linked information. In such an environment, technologists could have access to the "pipes" to make sure the systems were working, but they could not see the data in either raw form or in terms of documents. Information and the contexts of that information would only be available on a "need to know" basis -- ever. Such conditions themselves could be managed using classification tools. By classification, I mean the "if p, then q" model of Aristotle, the universal classification structure. This can be done in what I refer to as "expressive" classification structures, or trees.
Thus, the Eric Snowden's of the world -- and any other technologists or others with incidental access to data -- would have no choice to disclose information that they had no right to from a cognitive or authoritative standpoint. They would be managing "pipes", not "switches", with no knowledge of what was passing through the secure conduits. Access to any and all data and its meaningful contexts would only be available as it was earned in the community of practice in question, which would control the expressive trees that would grant such access. Certainly, there would continue to be documents flowing throughout the network, but the sensitive ones would be far less likely to be stolen, certainly not in volume as is possible when they are stashed in directories or folders as is typically the case.
In such a regime, there could be breeches, but they would be much more limited in terms of scope and subject area. No one would be able to serve up the entire store of information, except in encrypted, unclassified forms that would be unintelligible. Under such a system, junior technicians could not take upon themselves outsized influence, wielding "instruments of power" beyond their comprehension. They could conceivable break ranks with their employers, but they would simply be out of a job.
In such an environment, how would our rights be protected? This would be a critical aspect of the aforementioned "switches". They would need to be controlled by the "communities of practice", the legitimate authorities and networks of people and organizations that earn our trust and their respective professional respect and standing. Such designations have social and political implications, as well as commercial aspects. Trust is the important factor, trust that must be earned, having been tested and found worthy. The Eric Snowdens are a bad bet in the first place.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The three questions
Economic theory doesn't match reality. Look at unemployment, for example. It just stays up there, month after month. Perhaps there is some hope, but the slow recovery is unprecedented. Pain and suffering result, as well as waste, various environmental and political risks, and a sense of helplessness and despair. I offer three questions to help inform a discussion about resolution of the root problem and, by association, it's many negative consequences. In advance, I offer my opinion that it is not the lack of good ideals that tend to block our progress, it is the institutionalization of bad ideas that blocks the way. In a sense, that is the point. Lets not let that hold us back.
Then first question is this: Why don't we let producers produce their way, they way that they know how, rather than try to force them into a model that is awkwardly buoyed up by outdated philosophies and incorrect assumptions? Face it, they can produce all of what they have to offer with far fewer people. Many workers get in the way of better outcomes as they introduce poor attitudes and below-par skills and commitment. This is not a secret or a new revelation by any stretch of the imagination, it is just a factor that we choose to ignore, I think largely because we cannot bring ourselves to face the ugly consequences of the truth, given our assumptions.
We live in a time when people with great talents starve, at least from a professional or economic standpoint, while others are paid for activities that add little to the general good simply because their is "demand" for their services. Someone will pay them to do that thing. So they do that mundane thing (some of them being the self-same starving artists I referred to earlier) that gives them a paycheck, increasingly becoming absorbed into a system of meaninglessness, surrendering to its lack of positive stimulus and intrinsic satisfaction. Many do their jobs poorly, actually making things worse in terms of product and work environment.
The second question is this: What should people be doing with their time, particularly those that are "unemployed" by the above, the "producers"? We know what they should be doing if they have a job. The should be "working", an interesting construct that is construed as follows: "They should be doing something for which they are paid for if not their effort, then at least for their time, their presence in some location." If we take that from them, according to the prevailing assumptions, we rob them of purpose in life along with the rewards of a job.
The third question presents itself as a continuation of the other two: If people are to commit their lives and activities to their intrinsic talents, if society is to be reconfigured to adapt to the supply of talents and deep interests, how are these people to be paid? Remember, in question one, we considered production of goods and services that we all need and things for which there is a ready market. Since we have enough, we don't need these people to do that stuff. We are better served to promote and enjoy their talents.
Let's look at an extreme case. What if the basics, food, shelter, energy, transportation, could be provided better, making use of technologies, advanced methods, and the unique talents of the producers, but only requiring the efforts of one percent of the population. How would we distribute cash and other resources and rewards to everyone else, particularly those who have demonstrated skills and talents and have committed themselves to their development in recognized ways? What about people that are ready, willing, and able, even though they may not be budding Mozarts or Shakespeares?
I have some ideas, but my purpose here is not to discuss them. I would like you think about them and possibly comment.
Hopefully, the educational systems could help in this regard, though they would need to function quite differently from the way they do now. Schools seem to be better at beating students down for what they do not know and what they cannot do very well more than in discovering the students' innate talents and encouraging them. A critical social objective is rarely met in education, matching children and youth with leaders and educators in fields where the youth show promise. Such introductions would help them to grow, develop, and acquaint themselves with the opportunities and lifestyle options that present themselves as a result of their varied talents and commitments.
Related to this is the question of people that may elect to "opt out" of the entire program, that refuse to work in productive enterprise or are not wanted there, who do not present themselves with obvious talents or preoccupations? What are they to do and what is the system to do with them? Surely, they would want to do whatever they want, that is the point. I have seen some pretty amazing outcomes with an interventionist, behaviorist approach with people of this nature. The point is that they want something. Such desires, once understood, can translate into programs for distributing such goods, carrot-and-stick fashion, such that the public need is also met. This is a fairly expensive process, personnel-wise, but like anything else, it can be handled with greater efficiency by seasoned professionals. Of course, keep in mind that the process also "employs" people.
Answer these three questions and you change the world; you change the trajectory of mankind. I know, I know, we are going way too fast here. Please, lets leave such concerns out of it, as the point of the matter is whether the questions themselves make sense. The progress we enjoy is dependent on the willingness of others before us to engage in this very exercise.
Then first question is this: Why don't we let producers produce their way, they way that they know how, rather than try to force them into a model that is awkwardly buoyed up by outdated philosophies and incorrect assumptions? Face it, they can produce all of what they have to offer with far fewer people. Many workers get in the way of better outcomes as they introduce poor attitudes and below-par skills and commitment. This is not a secret or a new revelation by any stretch of the imagination, it is just a factor that we choose to ignore, I think largely because we cannot bring ourselves to face the ugly consequences of the truth, given our assumptions.
We live in a time when people with great talents starve, at least from a professional or economic standpoint, while others are paid for activities that add little to the general good simply because their is "demand" for their services. Someone will pay them to do that thing. So they do that mundane thing (some of them being the self-same starving artists I referred to earlier) that gives them a paycheck, increasingly becoming absorbed into a system of meaninglessness, surrendering to its lack of positive stimulus and intrinsic satisfaction. Many do their jobs poorly, actually making things worse in terms of product and work environment.
The second question is this: What should people be doing with their time, particularly those that are "unemployed" by the above, the "producers"? We know what they should be doing if they have a job. The should be "working", an interesting construct that is construed as follows: "They should be doing something for which they are paid for if not their effort, then at least for their time, their presence in some location." If we take that from them, according to the prevailing assumptions, we rob them of purpose in life along with the rewards of a job.
The third question presents itself as a continuation of the other two: If people are to commit their lives and activities to their intrinsic talents, if society is to be reconfigured to adapt to the supply of talents and deep interests, how are these people to be paid? Remember, in question one, we considered production of goods and services that we all need and things for which there is a ready market. Since we have enough, we don't need these people to do that stuff. We are better served to promote and enjoy their talents.
Let's look at an extreme case. What if the basics, food, shelter, energy, transportation, could be provided better, making use of technologies, advanced methods, and the unique talents of the producers, but only requiring the efforts of one percent of the population. How would we distribute cash and other resources and rewards to everyone else, particularly those who have demonstrated skills and talents and have committed themselves to their development in recognized ways? What about people that are ready, willing, and able, even though they may not be budding Mozarts or Shakespeares?
I have some ideas, but my purpose here is not to discuss them. I would like you think about them and possibly comment.
Hopefully, the educational systems could help in this regard, though they would need to function quite differently from the way they do now. Schools seem to be better at beating students down for what they do not know and what they cannot do very well more than in discovering the students' innate talents and encouraging them. A critical social objective is rarely met in education, matching children and youth with leaders and educators in fields where the youth show promise. Such introductions would help them to grow, develop, and acquaint themselves with the opportunities and lifestyle options that present themselves as a result of their varied talents and commitments.
Related to this is the question of people that may elect to "opt out" of the entire program, that refuse to work in productive enterprise or are not wanted there, who do not present themselves with obvious talents or preoccupations? What are they to do and what is the system to do with them? Surely, they would want to do whatever they want, that is the point. I have seen some pretty amazing outcomes with an interventionist, behaviorist approach with people of this nature. The point is that they want something. Such desires, once understood, can translate into programs for distributing such goods, carrot-and-stick fashion, such that the public need is also met. This is a fairly expensive process, personnel-wise, but like anything else, it can be handled with greater efficiency by seasoned professionals. Of course, keep in mind that the process also "employs" people.
Answer these three questions and you change the world; you change the trajectory of mankind. I know, I know, we are going way too fast here. Please, lets leave such concerns out of it, as the point of the matter is whether the questions themselves make sense. The progress we enjoy is dependent on the willingness of others before us to engage in this very exercise.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Whew!! Maybe now they will stop trying to sue us for living
The Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling that has stopped short the notion that our bodies in their natural glory can be licensed and auctioned off to the highest bidder. In response, proponents of the recent status quo in granted genomics patents complain that such a ruling will have a chilling effect on research and development funding, that companies, even governments, will no longer be able to justify making research commitments. The fire-hose of scientific findings, converted to our undeniable benefit, by their calculation, will end.
In response, we would say, "Good. Finally the insanity may stop". Those programs do not "pencil out" in the first place. In the Myriad case, two genes out of our 30,000 were found that signal a higher-than-normal incidence of breast cancer in one out of four women. They developed two tests for these, for which they set a list price of $1,500 each. Based on known demographics, one-fourth of women have one or another or a combination of the genes. Let's see, we are all MBAs or we know some, what is $3,000 times one-fourth times 3 billion five hundred million women (you know, half of the world population)? If you are on the receiving side of the ledger, that "budzillion" dollars looks very good. Now, combined with the fortunate few that can afford Angelina Jolie replacements after surgery (or have insurance that will pay for it because, you know, they have the gene), it looks even better. Think about it, too, these are only two out of 30,000 genes. The prospects are mind-boggling from a business perspective.
Not. It would be a serious evolutionary trick, would it not, for us to need to take such draconian steps to ensure our health? Of course, such a development would me largely viewed as an economic boon, the next of a long line of growth markets. Perhaps, but if this is the future laid out for us, most of us would exist in a huddling mass while the biological geniuses on the other side of the equation would live in exorbitant luxury, amassing as much gold and as many of the diamonds of the world as can be brought together. It would be like one of the desert scenes from the movie "Dune", where there were a few islands of wealth in a world of want, despair, and eventually, just blowing sand.
We don't need the blockbuster, Hail Mary cancer therapies that will give sufferers another couple of weeks of life. There is no biological or economic basis for this or other late stage chronic disease strategies, as there are far better options for both. We don't need the masterful plastic surgery skills to account for slightly different genetic risk profiles. Rather, we need to use a more complete knowledge of biology, particularly of metabolic, protein-oriented interactions, to relegate cancer, as well as other chronic conditions, to the history books. There are vast amounts of knowledge that have been arrived at to support this, yet many are not used.
Victory needs to be our avowed goal. War? That might not, in retrospect, be the best metaphor. The war on cancer will last as long as there is pink paint and pink textiles to be had. How about extermination? Possibly also too malleable. Perhaps simply "elimination".
There is a codicil, a summary, at the end of virtually all promising scientific studies with regard to cancer genesis and growth patterns of chronic diseases. Such summaries indicate that such knowledge as is found in such studies will help to develop "improved cancer therapies", to provide "more effective cancer therapy drugs", etc. Such declarations are like stamps of approval, confirmation of good work done. There is an assumed camaraderie in such statements, as in, "We'll really get 'em now, boys, we've got 'em on the run".
While they sound beneficial, objectives of this kind pale in comparison to the needed goal, forestalling cancer so that it does not happen in the first place. Pre-cancerous conditions need to be systematically detected; they need to be identified so that tumor growth is stopped before it gets a chance to start. The same must be said for preconditions of other chronic diseases. The "ghastly, horrific outcome", the "silent spring" of medicine and pharmacopiea, the end of chronic disease, needs to be our objective. I know this would be a bitter pill to the economy as we know it, as healthcare seems to be our only economic stopgap. Given increases in productivity elsewhere in the economy, people are increasingly turning to the world of medicine for employment. Where else are people going to get their jobs? Well, that is another matter, though it would clearly be a travesty if we weren't clever enough to adapt to a world without disease and the employment that it brings.
To create such a world, we need to embrace scientific findings with regard to cancer that indicate that such diseases surface from poor lifestyle choices. In the famous Oxford UK report to the US Congress in 1980 that helped to turn the tide on cigarette smoking, 30% of cancers were associated with smoking. Most of the other 70% were also associated with environmental causes, both behaviors and forms of contact with carcinogens, including 35% of cancer cases from poor nutrition choices. Approximately 5% to 10% of cancer genesis was associated with genetic inheritance alone.
What about that 65% of cancer causes, also lifestyle related, that we do not hear very much about, including nutritional factors? We do hear platitudes, admonitions that we should eat better or otherwise make improvements. The point is, vigilance and knowledge are called for, including constant monitoring of associated data, protein-oriented testing that discloses what is actually happening in the body, not just genetic possibilities, and providing people with more obvious, more attractive lifestyle options. For one thing, as Michael Moss points out, we could well stop trying to cram salt, sugar, and fat down everybody's gullets. There is nothing wrong with marketing, but couldn't we start to market the good stuff?
The idea of radical surgery in response to found genetic conditions alone is problematic. For one thing, surgery itself brings risks. Cytokine levels rise significantly with even minor surgery, a sign of inflammation that takes its toll, nudging up the prospects for chronic disorders. Furthermore, a higher genetically-based risk of cancer does not in any way foretell that cancers will form. In one with elevated risk, increased vigilance is warranted. Vigilance is warranted anyway, as we live in a dangerous world. If roughly 90% of our chronic disease risk comes from our lifestyles, that should bring hope, though the US Institute of Medicine recently published a report, "Shorter Lives, Poorer Health", that makes the case that Americans have structural limitations causing us to have shorter life expectancy and inferior health to people in other parts of the world. Can you imagine such a development?
In the subsequent thirty-three years sine the Oxford study was release to Congress, there has been an unexpected silence on the part of political and health advocacy groups regarding the "other" 65-70% of all cancer threats. Colin Campbell makes reference to a bias against nutrition as a viable source of risk, going back to the 1960s. Dietary aspects that have demonstrated increase risk are considered controversial even when the science is well-founded. "We must tip-toe. Big money is at stake." It is as though we need to buy time for nature to sort things out. Medical leaders in particular were not entirely comfortable with the answers we were getting in the 1970s and 1980s, so they ignored then. Unfortunately, such passivity turns out to be quite effective. With the overwhelming levels of advertising, direct and indirect, supporting problematic food practices and products, the public has been effectively beaten back on the issues. Diets have significantly worsened in the process, as have chronic health conditions.
Lest we stew ourselves in self-pity, there are solutions. After decades of struggle, the integrative medicine community has poked its head out of obscurity, emerging with verified data supporting their commitment to choice and their orientation toward wholeness in foods and breadth in the form of medical solutions. Their work represents a ray of light in this obscure world of misinformation and despair. For one thing, apart from epidemics and conditions where populations came in contact with foreign contaminants and pathogens, or pernicious bugs, people throughout history have been found to have been quite healthy. Of course, there have been famines and other serious disruptions of the food supply, resulting in want and suffering, even to starvation.
Ken Albala mentions the first staple diets that the "first civilizations" ate over millennia: barley, chickpeas and lentils as sources of protein. Very small amounts of meat, but cabbages, lettuces, and cucumbers. He says dairy was a late innovation, with little ability to digest milk past infancy. With this and improved means of storing food, populations were able to grow.
Thus were conditions regarding nutrition, up until not long ago. Now, we've gone all wild and crazy nutrition-wise. There are so many motivations and other factors in what we eat that health has long been crowded out. This takes us back to Michael Moss and his concerns about marketing promotion of foods that are obviously imbalanced, skewed toward self-serving marketing schemes, but not real nutritional requirements. Once again, I have to ask the questions, "Must markets be perverse? Isn't there a way to promote something that is good for us, that also tastes good, and that entertaining and readily available to eat?
More broadly-stated, was Adam Smith wrong when he called attention to "goods" and services in the first place? Should he have stated "stuff" and services. For that matter, services might be a bit too perky a term. Perhaps Professor Smith should have said "stuff we give you" and "things we do to you". I know, there has always been the "caveat emptor" clause, that the "buyer beware". But that has been a quality issue for the most part, short of the idea the "stuff" you get and the "things" done to you are flat out bad for you. The Institute of Medicine, as mentioned earlier, has made this very concession. The most advanced, richest country in the world is far from the healthiest, because all of this advancement and all of this prosperity has made us ... stupid.
Michael Moss mentions a neighborhood in Philadelphia where there is a flat-out war over what children buy in close proximity to the schools. The point is, the battle isn't going well. Part of the phenomenon is related to the "don't think about brown monkeys" problem. All the kids can think about is salt, sugar, and fat, all of which is plentifully and cheaply available. Part of the problem is the fact that conspiring companies have misused their mandate to pollute the palate and position both science and commerce against us. There are governmental and legal prescriptions for such kinds of problems to be sure, but the ultimate solutions are likely to be in those original realms, by providing legitimate science and effective commercial offerings when and where they can be embraced and enjoyed.
In response, we would say, "Good. Finally the insanity may stop". Those programs do not "pencil out" in the first place. In the Myriad case, two genes out of our 30,000 were found that signal a higher-than-normal incidence of breast cancer in one out of four women. They developed two tests for these, for which they set a list price of $1,500 each. Based on known demographics, one-fourth of women have one or another or a combination of the genes. Let's see, we are all MBAs or we know some, what is $3,000 times one-fourth times 3 billion five hundred million women (you know, half of the world population)? If you are on the receiving side of the ledger, that "budzillion" dollars looks very good. Now, combined with the fortunate few that can afford Angelina Jolie replacements after surgery (or have insurance that will pay for it because, you know, they have the gene), it looks even better. Think about it, too, these are only two out of 30,000 genes. The prospects are mind-boggling from a business perspective.
Not. It would be a serious evolutionary trick, would it not, for us to need to take such draconian steps to ensure our health? Of course, such a development would me largely viewed as an economic boon, the next of a long line of growth markets. Perhaps, but if this is the future laid out for us, most of us would exist in a huddling mass while the biological geniuses on the other side of the equation would live in exorbitant luxury, amassing as much gold and as many of the diamonds of the world as can be brought together. It would be like one of the desert scenes from the movie "Dune", where there were a few islands of wealth in a world of want, despair, and eventually, just blowing sand.
We don't need the blockbuster, Hail Mary cancer therapies that will give sufferers another couple of weeks of life. There is no biological or economic basis for this or other late stage chronic disease strategies, as there are far better options for both. We don't need the masterful plastic surgery skills to account for slightly different genetic risk profiles. Rather, we need to use a more complete knowledge of biology, particularly of metabolic, protein-oriented interactions, to relegate cancer, as well as other chronic conditions, to the history books. There are vast amounts of knowledge that have been arrived at to support this, yet many are not used.
Victory needs to be our avowed goal. War? That might not, in retrospect, be the best metaphor. The war on cancer will last as long as there is pink paint and pink textiles to be had. How about extermination? Possibly also too malleable. Perhaps simply "elimination".
There is a codicil, a summary, at the end of virtually all promising scientific studies with regard to cancer genesis and growth patterns of chronic diseases. Such summaries indicate that such knowledge as is found in such studies will help to develop "improved cancer therapies", to provide "more effective cancer therapy drugs", etc. Such declarations are like stamps of approval, confirmation of good work done. There is an assumed camaraderie in such statements, as in, "We'll really get 'em now, boys, we've got 'em on the run".
While they sound beneficial, objectives of this kind pale in comparison to the needed goal, forestalling cancer so that it does not happen in the first place. Pre-cancerous conditions need to be systematically detected; they need to be identified so that tumor growth is stopped before it gets a chance to start. The same must be said for preconditions of other chronic diseases. The "ghastly, horrific outcome", the "silent spring" of medicine and pharmacopiea, the end of chronic disease, needs to be our objective. I know this would be a bitter pill to the economy as we know it, as healthcare seems to be our only economic stopgap. Given increases in productivity elsewhere in the economy, people are increasingly turning to the world of medicine for employment. Where else are people going to get their jobs? Well, that is another matter, though it would clearly be a travesty if we weren't clever enough to adapt to a world without disease and the employment that it brings.
To create such a world, we need to embrace scientific findings with regard to cancer that indicate that such diseases surface from poor lifestyle choices. In the famous Oxford UK report to the US Congress in 1980 that helped to turn the tide on cigarette smoking, 30% of cancers were associated with smoking. Most of the other 70% were also associated with environmental causes, both behaviors and forms of contact with carcinogens, including 35% of cancer cases from poor nutrition choices. Approximately 5% to 10% of cancer genesis was associated with genetic inheritance alone.
What about that 65% of cancer causes, also lifestyle related, that we do not hear very much about, including nutritional factors? We do hear platitudes, admonitions that we should eat better or otherwise make improvements. The point is, vigilance and knowledge are called for, including constant monitoring of associated data, protein-oriented testing that discloses what is actually happening in the body, not just genetic possibilities, and providing people with more obvious, more attractive lifestyle options. For one thing, as Michael Moss points out, we could well stop trying to cram salt, sugar, and fat down everybody's gullets. There is nothing wrong with marketing, but couldn't we start to market the good stuff?
The idea of radical surgery in response to found genetic conditions alone is problematic. For one thing, surgery itself brings risks. Cytokine levels rise significantly with even minor surgery, a sign of inflammation that takes its toll, nudging up the prospects for chronic disorders. Furthermore, a higher genetically-based risk of cancer does not in any way foretell that cancers will form. In one with elevated risk, increased vigilance is warranted. Vigilance is warranted anyway, as we live in a dangerous world. If roughly 90% of our chronic disease risk comes from our lifestyles, that should bring hope, though the US Institute of Medicine recently published a report, "Shorter Lives, Poorer Health", that makes the case that Americans have structural limitations causing us to have shorter life expectancy and inferior health to people in other parts of the world. Can you imagine such a development?
In the subsequent thirty-three years sine the Oxford study was release to Congress, there has been an unexpected silence on the part of political and health advocacy groups regarding the "other" 65-70% of all cancer threats. Colin Campbell makes reference to a bias against nutrition as a viable source of risk, going back to the 1960s. Dietary aspects that have demonstrated increase risk are considered controversial even when the science is well-founded. "We must tip-toe. Big money is at stake." It is as though we need to buy time for nature to sort things out. Medical leaders in particular were not entirely comfortable with the answers we were getting in the 1970s and 1980s, so they ignored then. Unfortunately, such passivity turns out to be quite effective. With the overwhelming levels of advertising, direct and indirect, supporting problematic food practices and products, the public has been effectively beaten back on the issues. Diets have significantly worsened in the process, as have chronic health conditions.
Lest we stew ourselves in self-pity, there are solutions. After decades of struggle, the integrative medicine community has poked its head out of obscurity, emerging with verified data supporting their commitment to choice and their orientation toward wholeness in foods and breadth in the form of medical solutions. Their work represents a ray of light in this obscure world of misinformation and despair. For one thing, apart from epidemics and conditions where populations came in contact with foreign contaminants and pathogens, or pernicious bugs, people throughout history have been found to have been quite healthy. Of course, there have been famines and other serious disruptions of the food supply, resulting in want and suffering, even to starvation.
Ken Albala mentions the first staple diets that the "first civilizations" ate over millennia: barley, chickpeas and lentils as sources of protein. Very small amounts of meat, but cabbages, lettuces, and cucumbers. He says dairy was a late innovation, with little ability to digest milk past infancy. With this and improved means of storing food, populations were able to grow.
Thus were conditions regarding nutrition, up until not long ago. Now, we've gone all wild and crazy nutrition-wise. There are so many motivations and other factors in what we eat that health has long been crowded out. This takes us back to Michael Moss and his concerns about marketing promotion of foods that are obviously imbalanced, skewed toward self-serving marketing schemes, but not real nutritional requirements. Once again, I have to ask the questions, "Must markets be perverse? Isn't there a way to promote something that is good for us, that also tastes good, and that entertaining and readily available to eat?
More broadly-stated, was Adam Smith wrong when he called attention to "goods" and services in the first place? Should he have stated "stuff" and services. For that matter, services might be a bit too perky a term. Perhaps Professor Smith should have said "stuff we give you" and "things we do to you". I know, there has always been the "caveat emptor" clause, that the "buyer beware". But that has been a quality issue for the most part, short of the idea the "stuff" you get and the "things" done to you are flat out bad for you. The Institute of Medicine, as mentioned earlier, has made this very concession. The most advanced, richest country in the world is far from the healthiest, because all of this advancement and all of this prosperity has made us ... stupid.
Michael Moss mentions a neighborhood in Philadelphia where there is a flat-out war over what children buy in close proximity to the schools. The point is, the battle isn't going well. Part of the phenomenon is related to the "don't think about brown monkeys" problem. All the kids can think about is salt, sugar, and fat, all of which is plentifully and cheaply available. Part of the problem is the fact that conspiring companies have misused their mandate to pollute the palate and position both science and commerce against us. There are governmental and legal prescriptions for such kinds of problems to be sure, but the ultimate solutions are likely to be in those original realms, by providing legitimate science and effective commercial offerings when and where they can be embraced and enjoyed.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Cages
Four items in the recent news stand out as examples of our current predicament. We are in a time when really bright people are looking into the nooks and crannies of our world and finding little gems, often intricate puzzles sorted out from the complex maze of reality, that allow them to benefit without returning equivalent good to the rest of us. Their schemes may be clever, but they are clearly contrary to the general intent and problematic with regard to the public good.
What can we do about really bright people that really don't give a damn? If you try to put them in cages, they tend to find exits. For that matter, what we really want to do is to channel their efforts, which are not without merit. In fact, such channeling efforts, restraints, if not cages, can be considered metaphors for their lives, cat-and-mouse games that they play very well. Our point is to be able to establish and conduct policy frameworks that will almost trick them into acting in the public interest.
It is interesting to contrast the caginess of such people with others that are actually in cages, that do not know how to get out. The first group should more effectively be confined because they do not care. The second may or may not care, but should somehow be allowed to go free, metaphorically and physically.
First, the uber-technologists, the Googlers, do not understand why the arrangement under which they have paid only .087% of their revenues in the UK over the last five years as taxes when the stated tax rate is 23% is problematic to others. Their chair, Eric Schmidt, expressed incredulity with regard to the backlash that the situation created. His sole argument? It is not illegal, so what is your problem?
Another example is a guess by a financial expert as to how Mitt Romney ended up with about $150 million in his 401(k) account. Rather than use the tax exemption to commit the two thousand dollar limit per year "for a rainy day" as was intended by Congress, it is thought that Mr. Romney probably probably put "essentially worthless stocks" into his account that "surprisingly" were later worth tens of millions of dollars, over and over again. No rule broken, wink, wink. "So, is there a problem?" is the cagey response...
In the Google case, the "nothing wrong" has something to do with a tax deal struck with Ireland, registries in the Netherlands, and a Bermuda corporation, etc. Similarly, the Cheshire grin. Oh, its only money, so why should we care? For one thing, these people are the ones that we are turning all of our data over to. Of course, there are rules, but you can see what rules mean to this crowd, wink, wink.
There are people, organizations, that do pay the 23%. Are they just stupid?
The third case has to do with doctors in the UK. As it turns out, in the last decade, it was hoped that if the doctors there were to be paid more money, they would be better doctors, more caring, more hardworking, more effective. As is playing out across England, the results for the pay raise, to over 100,000 pounds on average, are not good, as outlined recently in the Daily Mail. Mick McDermott, a science editor, is relegated to reporting that tens of thousands of people with acute conditions that are not being attended to, even poorly. There are a lot of cool scientific things that could be considered just now, but we are looking here at something much lower on the totem pole.
This is sandbagging of a different sort than the Googler wink, but the issues are largely the same. There is an expectation that the public good is at issue, but the commitment is just not there. The range of behavior is "work or don't work". It needs to be significantly re-characterized, with different incentives.
There is news of the young man in a cage in China. He doesn't seem to have been able to figure things out, plus he has emotional/behavioral problems. The government there doesn't assume responsibility, so the family acted in this manner to defend themselves.
This is something that my wife and I know about. We have such a son, now twenty-three years old. He had an infection in his brain as an infant, has had many seizures, and has had much support from the educational and rehabilitation system in the United States. The system has failed quite dramatically and we are left to work out the aftermath each day. I know, he is our son, we love him, and we are responsible, but it wasn't intended that it be this way. The program was supposed to help him to find meaning, to find employment, to fit in to society. If this is to happen eventually, it is something that we will have to resolve as a family. We need to help him to break out of his cage.
I believe that the answer to questions of cages on both ends of the spectrum is not dissimilar. The "cheaters" rely on discontinuity between documented rules and their intended outcomes. They love jumping from one context to another while bringing their "jewels" along for the ride. Do we want to resolve this? I think so. We cannot continue to sustain such societal and economic losses with just a poultice and a few winks. To resolve these issues, we need far more detailed approaches, more nuanced, informed regulation and collaboration among parties and authorities. This isn't about "data", it is about "process". Policy-speaking, they need to be put into cages that will hold; their behavior as it were needs to be modified.
The people in cages need to be freed. This, too, is a complex task. I don't know about conditions with regard to the young man in China, but I do understand issues with regard to my son. As it stands, any risks he brings to the table, justifying possible restraint, is in large part due to his frustrations. He wants to have a normal life, but as it stands, he cannot. His speech lacks clarity. He has some cognitive and physical limitations, but they are spotty. In some ways, he is normal and he has talent bordering on giftedness in some ways.
For his life to be normal and fulfilled would require some infrastructure. Some excellent work has been done in his case by behaviorists that have structured his daily life around low level incentives that help to control him, but they have left him with a festering level of frustration because of the resulting daily grind that is growing day-by-day. He is miserable. The story could still turn out to be an unhappy one. We have a fresh new hole in one wall in the home, now covered over with a piece of craft work because I am not really good at fixing drywall. Interestingly, in his case, I am convinced that his talents could serve as the basis for an interesting and successful company. He is obsessed with cars, with design, with color. He is particularly with choice of color, shading, color combinations, texture. He has designed thousands of examples -- hundreds that are very good by my estimation. I have never seen anything on the highway or roads like many of his designs. I don't obsess over cars like he does, but my guess is that those that do would find a lot that they like.
Of course, how would this be paid for? If I am right, it would be self-sustaining at some point. Would it, could it, be considered to have intrinsic value if it wasn't ever to be self-sustaining? This is the ever-present social services question, is it not? The three examples, the Googlers, the slicksters, and the prime-time doctors want to live off of one side of the equation in ways that ignore the other side.
One of my mentors calls this a disability, one that is common in the leadership of our institutions. All of the societal elements, including laws and norms and the willingness to pay taxes even though you know about ways of dodging them, and educators and neighbors and others that have helped them along the way, are forgotten. They may engage in projects they favor, but are unwilling to put resources to the general good. True, many may call attention to apparent illegitimacy of governments, bad behavior, etc. Efforts to support reform are important, but ultimately supporting the legitimacy of the governments in question is in order. They peruse the borders and keep the peace and much more.
We would prefer to live without cages. Some will obviously always be necessarily. Their existence helps to bring others into the light.
What can we do about really bright people that really don't give a damn? If you try to put them in cages, they tend to find exits. For that matter, what we really want to do is to channel their efforts, which are not without merit. In fact, such channeling efforts, restraints, if not cages, can be considered metaphors for their lives, cat-and-mouse games that they play very well. Our point is to be able to establish and conduct policy frameworks that will almost trick them into acting in the public interest.
It is interesting to contrast the caginess of such people with others that are actually in cages, that do not know how to get out. The first group should more effectively be confined because they do not care. The second may or may not care, but should somehow be allowed to go free, metaphorically and physically.
First, the uber-technologists, the Googlers, do not understand why the arrangement under which they have paid only .087% of their revenues in the UK over the last five years as taxes when the stated tax rate is 23% is problematic to others. Their chair, Eric Schmidt, expressed incredulity with regard to the backlash that the situation created. His sole argument? It is not illegal, so what is your problem?
Another example is a guess by a financial expert as to how Mitt Romney ended up with about $150 million in his 401(k) account. Rather than use the tax exemption to commit the two thousand dollar limit per year "for a rainy day" as was intended by Congress, it is thought that Mr. Romney probably probably put "essentially worthless stocks" into his account that "surprisingly" were later worth tens of millions of dollars, over and over again. No rule broken, wink, wink. "So, is there a problem?" is the cagey response...
In the Google case, the "nothing wrong" has something to do with a tax deal struck with Ireland, registries in the Netherlands, and a Bermuda corporation, etc. Similarly, the Cheshire grin. Oh, its only money, so why should we care? For one thing, these people are the ones that we are turning all of our data over to. Of course, there are rules, but you can see what rules mean to this crowd, wink, wink.
There are people, organizations, that do pay the 23%. Are they just stupid?
The third case has to do with doctors in the UK. As it turns out, in the last decade, it was hoped that if the doctors there were to be paid more money, they would be better doctors, more caring, more hardworking, more effective. As is playing out across England, the results for the pay raise, to over 100,000 pounds on average, are not good, as outlined recently in the Daily Mail. Mick McDermott, a science editor, is relegated to reporting that tens of thousands of people with acute conditions that are not being attended to, even poorly. There are a lot of cool scientific things that could be considered just now, but we are looking here at something much lower on the totem pole.
This is sandbagging of a different sort than the Googler wink, but the issues are largely the same. There is an expectation that the public good is at issue, but the commitment is just not there. The range of behavior is "work or don't work". It needs to be significantly re-characterized, with different incentives.
There is news of the young man in a cage in China. He doesn't seem to have been able to figure things out, plus he has emotional/behavioral problems. The government there doesn't assume responsibility, so the family acted in this manner to defend themselves.
This is something that my wife and I know about. We have such a son, now twenty-three years old. He had an infection in his brain as an infant, has had many seizures, and has had much support from the educational and rehabilitation system in the United States. The system has failed quite dramatically and we are left to work out the aftermath each day. I know, he is our son, we love him, and we are responsible, but it wasn't intended that it be this way. The program was supposed to help him to find meaning, to find employment, to fit in to society. If this is to happen eventually, it is something that we will have to resolve as a family. We need to help him to break out of his cage.
I believe that the answer to questions of cages on both ends of the spectrum is not dissimilar. The "cheaters" rely on discontinuity between documented rules and their intended outcomes. They love jumping from one context to another while bringing their "jewels" along for the ride. Do we want to resolve this? I think so. We cannot continue to sustain such societal and economic losses with just a poultice and a few winks. To resolve these issues, we need far more detailed approaches, more nuanced, informed regulation and collaboration among parties and authorities. This isn't about "data", it is about "process". Policy-speaking, they need to be put into cages that will hold; their behavior as it were needs to be modified.
The people in cages need to be freed. This, too, is a complex task. I don't know about conditions with regard to the young man in China, but I do understand issues with regard to my son. As it stands, any risks he brings to the table, justifying possible restraint, is in large part due to his frustrations. He wants to have a normal life, but as it stands, he cannot. His speech lacks clarity. He has some cognitive and physical limitations, but they are spotty. In some ways, he is normal and he has talent bordering on giftedness in some ways.
For his life to be normal and fulfilled would require some infrastructure. Some excellent work has been done in his case by behaviorists that have structured his daily life around low level incentives that help to control him, but they have left him with a festering level of frustration because of the resulting daily grind that is growing day-by-day. He is miserable. The story could still turn out to be an unhappy one. We have a fresh new hole in one wall in the home, now covered over with a piece of craft work because I am not really good at fixing drywall. Interestingly, in his case, I am convinced that his talents could serve as the basis for an interesting and successful company. He is obsessed with cars, with design, with color. He is particularly with choice of color, shading, color combinations, texture. He has designed thousands of examples -- hundreds that are very good by my estimation. I have never seen anything on the highway or roads like many of his designs. I don't obsess over cars like he does, but my guess is that those that do would find a lot that they like.
Of course, how would this be paid for? If I am right, it would be self-sustaining at some point. Would it, could it, be considered to have intrinsic value if it wasn't ever to be self-sustaining? This is the ever-present social services question, is it not? The three examples, the Googlers, the slicksters, and the prime-time doctors want to live off of one side of the equation in ways that ignore the other side.
One of my mentors calls this a disability, one that is common in the leadership of our institutions. All of the societal elements, including laws and norms and the willingness to pay taxes even though you know about ways of dodging them, and educators and neighbors and others that have helped them along the way, are forgotten. They may engage in projects they favor, but are unwilling to put resources to the general good. True, many may call attention to apparent illegitimacy of governments, bad behavior, etc. Efforts to support reform are important, but ultimately supporting the legitimacy of the governments in question is in order. They peruse the borders and keep the peace and much more.
We would prefer to live without cages. Some will obviously always be necessarily. Their existence helps to bring others into the light.
Monday, May 13, 2013
First, you have to get sick
I recently went to a conference dedicated improving health care. The attendees and the presenters were billed as reformers. They reiterated in all of the sessions that something significant needed to be done.
Funny, though. There were wide variances on what kind of action is warranted. In some cases, they indicated that the problem was only a matter of better communication. Others expressed anxiety about such limited steps, but didn't really outline a cohesive plan.
In one session, the presenter started out with the question, "What is our medical system" as a way of setting the agenda and stimulating conversation. There was an awkward silence, not uncommon in a crowd.
So I contributed what was in my mind, "First, you have to get sick".
He lowered is head a little. His mouth opened a lot, but not to speak. He stared at me for a few seconds. Then he changed the subject and went on.
I am sure that this was not a seminal moment in the history of health and medicine, but it was a sign of the compromised state of affairs. There is a fine-tuned dialog based on derivative issues that are doomed to fail. If only we could get nature to cooperate with our carefully negotiated healthcare deals. Isn't there some way, we would hope, to to embed ourselves into the evolutionary process right now to immediately get what we want?
Of course, the answer is "no".
As emphasized by Dr. Miroslaw Manicki, health plans are typically based on wishful thinking. We have finely-tuned schemes, mostly about how to pay for services, but not about much else. Physicians continue to do pretty much what they want. There is a huge gap between the science and the practice. This is odd, given that much of the apparent legitimacy of medical practitioners comes from their proximity to esteemed scientific research centers. The scientists don't really mind as long as they continue to get funded. They like solving puzzles and they are not really involved in the process of using them or getting others to do so.
Even though nature does not assume a seat around the health care negotiation table, its effects loom large. Largely this comes from poor performance with regard to chronic diseases.
Colin Campbell provides an interesting example of one aspect of the problem. In his recent book, Whole, he describes an encounter with a member of his family and an oncologist. A diagnosis of cancer had been declared. The doctor indicated that there were three options, combinations of these. They were surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The Campbells responded that they wish to follow an integrative approach, most particularly an approach that emphasized the role of nutrition. The doctor was openly dismissive In effect, he issued a death sentence if the didn't act immediately.
The Campbells elected to follow the integrative approach, and after several years the results have been very good. Dr. Campbell is clear to say that this result is not a scientific finding, lacking the statistical and sampling requirements for credible generalizability, etc. On the other hand, the outcome was a good one, backed by much research in many related fields -- dating in fact back to Otto Warburg and his observations on the cellular origins of cancer. Genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and many other research areas are providing evidence of the importance of nutrition and other holistic factors in the ongoing defeat by the body of cancers and other unwanted health conditions.
If Dr Campbell, a world-renowned scientists, was not able to persuade the doctor, what chance do others have? He estimates that approximately 2,000 to 3,000 such sessions between doctors and their clients occur each day in the United States. People need information to gain leverage, if not to supplement their own actions. As recently described in the New England Journal of Medicine, the doctors themselves find themselves in a vise, depending on the expensive, invasive methods and drugs.
Of course, the answer is "no".
As emphasized by Dr. Miroslaw Manicki, health plans are typically based on wishful thinking. We have finely-tuned schemes, mostly about how to pay for services, but not about much else. Physicians continue to do pretty much what they want. There is a huge gap between the science and the practice. This is odd, given that much of the apparent legitimacy of medical practitioners comes from their proximity to esteemed scientific research centers. The scientists don't really mind as long as they continue to get funded. They like solving puzzles and they are not really involved in the process of using them or getting others to do so.
Even though nature does not assume a seat around the health care negotiation table, its effects loom large. Largely this comes from poor performance with regard to chronic diseases.
Colin Campbell provides an interesting example of one aspect of the problem. In his recent book, Whole, he describes an encounter with a member of his family and an oncologist. A diagnosis of cancer had been declared. The doctor indicated that there were three options, combinations of these. They were surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The Campbells responded that they wish to follow an integrative approach, most particularly an approach that emphasized the role of nutrition. The doctor was openly dismissive In effect, he issued a death sentence if the didn't act immediately.
The Campbells elected to follow the integrative approach, and after several years the results have been very good. Dr. Campbell is clear to say that this result is not a scientific finding, lacking the statistical and sampling requirements for credible generalizability, etc. On the other hand, the outcome was a good one, backed by much research in many related fields -- dating in fact back to Otto Warburg and his observations on the cellular origins of cancer. Genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and many other research areas are providing evidence of the importance of nutrition and other holistic factors in the ongoing defeat by the body of cancers and other unwanted health conditions.
If Dr Campbell, a world-renowned scientists, was not able to persuade the doctor, what chance do others have? He estimates that approximately 2,000 to 3,000 such sessions between doctors and their clients occur each day in the United States. People need information to gain leverage, if not to supplement their own actions. As recently described in the New England Journal of Medicine, the doctors themselves find themselves in a vise, depending on the expensive, invasive methods and drugs.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Blacksmith Fork River and the health care solution
As earlier noted, the health care crisis is a complex, troubling riddle, but a solution is at hand. It is this: Follow the science for solutions, wherever that leads. This sounds simple and many would indicate that it is not. The interface between science and politics alone brings grounds for confusion and negotiation. There are those that would indicate that to commit resources and efforts to viable solutions, we must adapt to complexities and preferences at every turn.
The problem is, nature is not sitting around the negotiation table. What passes for compromise and negotiation often ends up in wholesale slaughter of the underlying science. Let me use a recent example, that of the use of the Prostate-Specific Antigen, the longstanding test for prostate cancer. This test is commonly referred to as the PSA test. Otis Brawley in his 2011 book, "How We Do Harm", outlines parameters of the issue from a politically-powerful position, that of the medical community, including many venerable institutions and much of government itself. Issues with regard to PSA and prostate cancer policy are as found in the Brawley book unless indicated otherwise.
I will use this situation as an example of what happens when we do not follow the science in question, with notes as to how I believe the issue of pancreatic cancer might otherwise be handled.
PSA has been used for decade as the gold standard for identifying whether a man has prostate cancer. Much work has been done in this period to learn of the effectiveness of the test. Last Fall, the official recommendation to use the test in the United States for prostate cancer screening was rescinded. The test, it was declared, has the potential to be dangerous. The initial reaction of one health professional, when he heard of the announcement was, "how can a blood test be dangerous?" Herein is the story.
The problem is that the PSA test has been found to be imperfect in that it can be used to identify a prostate cancer, but it is a poor measure of whether the person has the kind of prostate cancer that will kill. Technically, PSA will point to a "malignancy", but it will not provide information on whether the cancer is "indolent" or not. Indolent prostate cancer, as it is explained, will not kill a person. It will not spread to other organs in the body.
The question of danger is raised in an unexpected way. With information provided by the PSA test alone, doctors would be inclined to carry out cancer therapy. They would not know simply from the PSA score if the pancreas in question had an indolent tumor or not. Based on the PSA information, hey would go ahead with cancer therapies, which of themselves are highly damaging to the body if not dangerous in their own right. Related actions would involve surgical procedures, chemotherapy, radiation, administration of other cancer drugs, etc. Since such procedures may make the cancer worse and may bring other unintended consequences, and since the sue of such would have been triggered by the test, the test itself is now labeled as being dangerous. After extensive review of the issue at this level, the official suggestion was recently made to not use the test. It does not seem to have been disallowed.
A cursory review of research articles on PubMed, the comprehensive government-sponsored biological and medical research database, shows over 2,800 publications under "pancreatic cancer tests". Not mentioned in the Brawley book, these articles make reference to many such tests. Perhaps, the PSA's use could be supplemented by them. By the same token, they could conceivably be used to replace that test, given its documented incompleteness.
The point here is clear, though not outlined in Brawley. Chronic diseases do not appear out of nowhere. They may surprise individuals and clinicians when they present themselves -- this is often the case. There is little effort to catch chronic diseases in their early stages. Brawley, for example, mentions that prostate cancer is particularly problematic because the prostate gland is located in the center of the body and is difficult to see. This is central to the point; diagnosis is still carried out at a very visual, tactile level. It would be tempting to compare such diagnosis to auto mechanics if it weren't for the fact that that field converted to digital, data-driven evaluation decades ago. What is needed in this and other cases is data, data, and more data, along with the best available interpretive support, ideally from the people most knowledgeable about the subjects at hand.
Cancers and other chronic diseases do not surprise the body. In every case, the body will have created such disorders. Stimulated by natural processes gone awry, life-giving processes express themselves slightly akimbo, perhaps resulting in genetic abnormalities, maybe resulting in incomplete or unresponsive proteins within the system. Understanding functions of inflammatory and immune systems point to underlying conditions that foment chronic disorders. Cancer is the result of runaway cell growth and associated malfunctions with regard to cellular respiration, the means by which the body generates energy and controls growth at the most basis levels. Contrary to popular belief, chronic diseases, including cancers, are based in lifestyle and environmental malfunctions. Toxins are a big factor here.
Brawley mentions one more factor that calls attention to a wide gap between our treatment of pancreatic cancer challenges and their resolution. He mentions in one section of the book that prevailing definitions of prostate cancer date to the work of pathologists in Germany in the 1840s. He mentions this as a "problem", and adds his opinion that "we need a 2012 genetic definition of prostate cancer" (237-238). Well, yes, and we need to give updated tests a chance. There is obviously a "kink in the hose" with regard to knowledge of the pancreas and related disorders. This is the problem we call attention to. When knowledge is available, it should be evaluated by qualified, committed parties, and it should be used.
This is where the reference to Blacksmith Fork River comes in. As we are broadcasting this message from Northern Utah, in the American West, we look to our own heritage. I have called attention to the work and life of Marriner Eccles in particular. Once he picked up where his father had left off with his untimely death about a century ago, Marriner organized a series of successes there were momentous and unexpected. Yesterday, I created a YouTube presentation of just under an hour where I describe Marriner's career and some of his gifts to us, his beneficiaries. You may want to review that when you have the time.
The point I wish to make now relates to two events in Marriner Eccles' life that demonstrate his dedication to solutions where distractions may otherwise exist. As he began his career, recently having returned from a foreign religious mission, he was working on a family-related business, a hydroelectric project on the Blacksmith Fork River. This is what most would declare is a large stream in an equally small canyon in Northern Utah, near a community named Hyrum. While there at work, he got word of his father's unexpected and untimely death. This sets a serious of events into motion that were both challenging and emotionally taxing. The net result was that Marriner was able to apply his talents and efforts toward the continuation of the family enterprises as outlined to some degree in the video presentation.
About twenty years later, Marriner got another call. This time, he was asked by the Roosevelt Administration to forgo his business interests for the time being to go to Washington, DC, to help the American government to deal with the ravages of the Great Depression. He had offered up suggestions as to how the economy might be put on track -- resulting in about two decades of public service in which he oversaw works projects funding and related administration. Basically, he was a principal in establishing Keynesian economics before Keynes publish his version of the idea. Also, he was a very powerful and influential Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
The point here, however, relates to what Marriner was doing when he got the call to go to Washington. As it turns out, he was managing the epic project to build the Hoover Dam in Black Canyon on the Nevada-Arizona border. His position was as Chairman of the Six Companies that was building the dam, which ultimately was constructed with two years to spare on the contract.
How did Marriner go from little Blacksmith Fork Canyon to Hoover Dam? Without reciting the detailed history, we can see that the path was a straightforward one. As water runs downstream, Marriner's knowledge of such matters grew over time to a mastery of impressive aspects of hydrology, engineering, construction, finance, and administration. Locals may note that the Blacksmith Fork feeds the Bear River, then the Great Salt Lake, not the Colorado, which winds to the Pacific Ocean. Apart from this technicality, we can see an abiding commitment to the realities of nature that led downstream from one canyon to the other.
This is how nature works. It works in streams, in tree-like patterns. Although there is an element of randomness in individual cases, nature follows patterns generally. It is in the understanding of these patterns, how they relate to one another, what causes elements to follow one path if not another, that we can learn to work with nature. The point of science and related policy is that we need to adapt to it fundamentally, not the other way around. As mentioned earlier, nature does not present itself to the negotiation table.
In our modern world, we spend blissful evenings watching our favorite television shows in high definition while listening to endless recitations of side effects from various pharmaceutical preparations. Interestingly, such lists often begin with terms like "death" and "strokes" and "seizures", recited with blazing speed. Is this the future that was intended for our day? Is this a future that is necessary at all? We cannot chop, slice, and dice away at nature without unintended consequences.
Side effects of pharmaceutical products reflect one aspect of the problem. We have a disjointed approach to the science of health. Dealing with incomplete understanding of or respect for natural flows within the body and in our environment, we end up with shortsighted, stilted results. Although nature itself does not, cannot sit around the negotiation table, it must be the elephant in the room. We need to use methods and tools that call attention to important natural connections. We need to commit to chains of thought that reflect scientific realities and commit to follow them wherever they lead. When we try to turn nature on its head, to impose our will, or simply decide to forget, natural phenomena are still there, ready to "whack us on the head".
The problem is, nature is not sitting around the negotiation table. What passes for compromise and negotiation often ends up in wholesale slaughter of the underlying science. Let me use a recent example, that of the use of the Prostate-Specific Antigen, the longstanding test for prostate cancer. This test is commonly referred to as the PSA test. Otis Brawley in his 2011 book, "How We Do Harm", outlines parameters of the issue from a politically-powerful position, that of the medical community, including many venerable institutions and much of government itself. Issues with regard to PSA and prostate cancer policy are as found in the Brawley book unless indicated otherwise.
I will use this situation as an example of what happens when we do not follow the science in question, with notes as to how I believe the issue of pancreatic cancer might otherwise be handled.
PSA has been used for decade as the gold standard for identifying whether a man has prostate cancer. Much work has been done in this period to learn of the effectiveness of the test. Last Fall, the official recommendation to use the test in the United States for prostate cancer screening was rescinded. The test, it was declared, has the potential to be dangerous. The initial reaction of one health professional, when he heard of the announcement was, "how can a blood test be dangerous?" Herein is the story.
The problem is that the PSA test has been found to be imperfect in that it can be used to identify a prostate cancer, but it is a poor measure of whether the person has the kind of prostate cancer that will kill. Technically, PSA will point to a "malignancy", but it will not provide information on whether the cancer is "indolent" or not. Indolent prostate cancer, as it is explained, will not kill a person. It will not spread to other organs in the body.
The question of danger is raised in an unexpected way. With information provided by the PSA test alone, doctors would be inclined to carry out cancer therapy. They would not know simply from the PSA score if the pancreas in question had an indolent tumor or not. Based on the PSA information, hey would go ahead with cancer therapies, which of themselves are highly damaging to the body if not dangerous in their own right. Related actions would involve surgical procedures, chemotherapy, radiation, administration of other cancer drugs, etc. Since such procedures may make the cancer worse and may bring other unintended consequences, and since the sue of such would have been triggered by the test, the test itself is now labeled as being dangerous. After extensive review of the issue at this level, the official suggestion was recently made to not use the test. It does not seem to have been disallowed.
A cursory review of research articles on PubMed, the comprehensive government-sponsored biological and medical research database, shows over 2,800 publications under "pancreatic cancer tests". Not mentioned in the Brawley book, these articles make reference to many such tests. Perhaps, the PSA's use could be supplemented by them. By the same token, they could conceivably be used to replace that test, given its documented incompleteness.
The point here is clear, though not outlined in Brawley. Chronic diseases do not appear out of nowhere. They may surprise individuals and clinicians when they present themselves -- this is often the case. There is little effort to catch chronic diseases in their early stages. Brawley, for example, mentions that prostate cancer is particularly problematic because the prostate gland is located in the center of the body and is difficult to see. This is central to the point; diagnosis is still carried out at a very visual, tactile level. It would be tempting to compare such diagnosis to auto mechanics if it weren't for the fact that that field converted to digital, data-driven evaluation decades ago. What is needed in this and other cases is data, data, and more data, along with the best available interpretive support, ideally from the people most knowledgeable about the subjects at hand.
Cancers and other chronic diseases do not surprise the body. In every case, the body will have created such disorders. Stimulated by natural processes gone awry, life-giving processes express themselves slightly akimbo, perhaps resulting in genetic abnormalities, maybe resulting in incomplete or unresponsive proteins within the system. Understanding functions of inflammatory and immune systems point to underlying conditions that foment chronic disorders. Cancer is the result of runaway cell growth and associated malfunctions with regard to cellular respiration, the means by which the body generates energy and controls growth at the most basis levels. Contrary to popular belief, chronic diseases, including cancers, are based in lifestyle and environmental malfunctions. Toxins are a big factor here.
Brawley mentions one more factor that calls attention to a wide gap between our treatment of pancreatic cancer challenges and their resolution. He mentions in one section of the book that prevailing definitions of prostate cancer date to the work of pathologists in Germany in the 1840s. He mentions this as a "problem", and adds his opinion that "we need a 2012 genetic definition of prostate cancer" (237-238). Well, yes, and we need to give updated tests a chance. There is obviously a "kink in the hose" with regard to knowledge of the pancreas and related disorders. This is the problem we call attention to. When knowledge is available, it should be evaluated by qualified, committed parties, and it should be used.
This is where the reference to Blacksmith Fork River comes in. As we are broadcasting this message from Northern Utah, in the American West, we look to our own heritage. I have called attention to the work and life of Marriner Eccles in particular. Once he picked up where his father had left off with his untimely death about a century ago, Marriner organized a series of successes there were momentous and unexpected. Yesterday, I created a YouTube presentation of just under an hour where I describe Marriner's career and some of his gifts to us, his beneficiaries. You may want to review that when you have the time.
The point I wish to make now relates to two events in Marriner Eccles' life that demonstrate his dedication to solutions where distractions may otherwise exist. As he began his career, recently having returned from a foreign religious mission, he was working on a family-related business, a hydroelectric project on the Blacksmith Fork River. This is what most would declare is a large stream in an equally small canyon in Northern Utah, near a community named Hyrum. While there at work, he got word of his father's unexpected and untimely death. This sets a serious of events into motion that were both challenging and emotionally taxing. The net result was that Marriner was able to apply his talents and efforts toward the continuation of the family enterprises as outlined to some degree in the video presentation.
About twenty years later, Marriner got another call. This time, he was asked by the Roosevelt Administration to forgo his business interests for the time being to go to Washington, DC, to help the American government to deal with the ravages of the Great Depression. He had offered up suggestions as to how the economy might be put on track -- resulting in about two decades of public service in which he oversaw works projects funding and related administration. Basically, he was a principal in establishing Keynesian economics before Keynes publish his version of the idea. Also, he was a very powerful and influential Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
The point here, however, relates to what Marriner was doing when he got the call to go to Washington. As it turns out, he was managing the epic project to build the Hoover Dam in Black Canyon on the Nevada-Arizona border. His position was as Chairman of the Six Companies that was building the dam, which ultimately was constructed with two years to spare on the contract.
How did Marriner go from little Blacksmith Fork Canyon to Hoover Dam? Without reciting the detailed history, we can see that the path was a straightforward one. As water runs downstream, Marriner's knowledge of such matters grew over time to a mastery of impressive aspects of hydrology, engineering, construction, finance, and administration. Locals may note that the Blacksmith Fork feeds the Bear River, then the Great Salt Lake, not the Colorado, which winds to the Pacific Ocean. Apart from this technicality, we can see an abiding commitment to the realities of nature that led downstream from one canyon to the other.
This is how nature works. It works in streams, in tree-like patterns. Although there is an element of randomness in individual cases, nature follows patterns generally. It is in the understanding of these patterns, how they relate to one another, what causes elements to follow one path if not another, that we can learn to work with nature. The point of science and related policy is that we need to adapt to it fundamentally, not the other way around. As mentioned earlier, nature does not present itself to the negotiation table.
In our modern world, we spend blissful evenings watching our favorite television shows in high definition while listening to endless recitations of side effects from various pharmaceutical preparations. Interestingly, such lists often begin with terms like "death" and "strokes" and "seizures", recited with blazing speed. Is this the future that was intended for our day? Is this a future that is necessary at all? We cannot chop, slice, and dice away at nature without unintended consequences.
Side effects of pharmaceutical products reflect one aspect of the problem. We have a disjointed approach to the science of health. Dealing with incomplete understanding of or respect for natural flows within the body and in our environment, we end up with shortsighted, stilted results. Although nature itself does not, cannot sit around the negotiation table, it must be the elephant in the room. We need to use methods and tools that call attention to important natural connections. We need to commit to chains of thought that reflect scientific realities and commit to follow them wherever they lead. When we try to turn nature on its head, to impose our will, or simply decide to forget, natural phenomena are still there, ready to "whack us on the head".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)