The Future of War

This past week I came across a fascinating article. Entitled The Science of the Future of War, the article is actually an excerpt from the recently published book Sex and War by Malcom Potts and Thomas Hayden.

The article’s opening lines immediately brought me thinking: “Today’s most brutal wars are also the most primal. They are fought with machetes in West Africa, with fire and rape and fear in Darfur, and with suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices in Israel, Iraq, and elsewhere. But as horrifying as these conflicts are, they are not the greatest threat to our survival as a species. We humans are a frightening animal. Throughout our species’s existence, we have used each new technology we have developed to boost the destructive power of our ancient predisposition for killing members of our own species.”

Indeed, history shows that this is true. The article cites three major examples and examines them in close detail: Poison Gas, Nuclear Weapons, and Germ Warfare. All three are perfect examples of how humans have adapted technology to create devastatingly lethal weapons. While it is not difficult to question whether humans have made moral progress, technological progress seems unquestionable. And yet, as this article powerfully demonstrates, our technological “progress” has now made the destruction of all human life on earth an easier task to accomplish. Thus, is technological progress really a good thing? All our medicines and scientific advances have decreased the impact that nature and chance has over our lives (once devastating diseases are now curable, better nutrition has led to longer lifespans), yet our advancements in the fields of war have increased the power for ourselves to deal death to each other. Who would you rather give that power too? Ultimately, it comes down to the question of true human nature. If you believe humans are naturally good, then the increased control we humans have over ourselves is certainly a positive change. But if you believe otherwise, well… perhaps technologic is just hastening the arrival of doomsday.

The article, however, chooses to take a very rational, scientific approach. It acknowledges that war is an inherent feature of humanity, and that the key to preventing war is to understand and prevent its causes. The article cites competition over resources as the fundamental factor that causes all conflicts or wars; perhaps a difficult proposal to accept in the light of the recent fundamentalist religious violence. And yet, it gives solid evidence to defend this argument:

“Human wars may come wrapped in a veneer of religion or political philosophy, but the battle for resources is usually just below the surface. When Pope Urban II exhorted the nobles of Europe to join the First Crusade, he contrasted the lands where they lived, which had “scarcely enough food for their cultivators,” with Palestine, where the crusaders would be able to appropriate land from the Infidels. In World War II, the need for land and resources was expressed as Hitler’s concept of lebensraum, or “living space.” “The aim [of] the efforts and sacrifices of the German people in this war,” he wrote, “must be to win territory in the East for the German people.” The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they knew they had to destroy the American Pacific fleet if they were to access the Indonesian oil they needed to supply their industries. As we saw earlier, while rapid population growth and massive unemployment in some settings, such as the Gaza Strip, do not cause wars or terrorist attacks by themselves, they certainly make them more likely.”

The article continues on to explore the connection between population group, the subsequent increased demand for resources, and periods of war. Evidence for this argument can be found, and is cited, from all periods throughout human history. Yet the true importance of this argument and this article is its relevance to the present in the future. With population increasing exponentially and the signs of reduced resources already showing (rising oil and gas prices, destruction of rainforests, and water shortages), following this pattern set by history will yield war and global conflict on epic proportions.

“We live in very different evolutionary times than any of our ancestors. After 3.5 billion years of competition, life on Earth has reached its carrying capacity. More competition at this point means fighting harder over a constantly dwindling pool of available resources. As we seek ways to solve our environmental crises, address the warming climate, and combat emerging diseases and global poverty, our very survival as a species requires finding more ways to cooperate rather than compete. And thanks especially to WMDs, the survival of our species now also means bringing an end to war as we know it. It is time to leave our history of team aggression behind.”

Technology and Happiness

In this past century, or even in just the past twenty years, the world has experienced an advance in technology greater than ever before. The microchip has redefined all of society; everything from iPods to phones to vehicles to toys now rely on this precious technology. Advances in technology have brought cures for deadly illnesses, drastically improved the living conditions of the average person, and have created new standards of recreation and entertainment. In short, technology has come to define human progress.

So what is the goal of life, the purpose of humanity? The answer rings simple and clear from a wide range of sources (including the Declaration of Independence), yet I feel perhaps His Holiness the Dalai Lama said it best in his speech at the “Forum 2000” conference in Prague in 1997.
“I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment.”

Thus, it makes sense that technological progress would be a fair indicator of progress as a civilization. Unless, of course, technology isn’t necessarily making us happier.

An article I read today, entitled Technology and Happiness: Why getting more gadgets won't necessarily increase our well-being, explains the situation.

“By most standards, then, you'd have to say that Americans are better off now than they were in the middle of the last century. Oddly, though, if you ask Americans how happy they are, you find that they’re no happier than they were in 1946 (which is when formal surveys of happiness started). In fact, the percentage of people who say they’re very happy has fallen slightly since the early 1970s -- even though the income of people born in 1940 has increased, on average, 116 percent over the course of their working lives.”

The article goes on to explain that this isn’t just an American Phenomenon, but something that occurs in numerous developed countries. Exhibit A: Japan. “Between 1960 and the late 1980s, Japan's economy was utterly transformed, as the nation went from a low-cost supplier of cheap manufactured goods to what is perhaps the world’s most technologically sophisticated society. Over that stretch, the country's GDP quintupled. And yet by the late 1980s, the Japanese said they were no happier than they had been in 1960.”

And yet, according to the article, there was one group of Americans that stayed consistently very happy: The Amish. The article even states that on a survey asking how satisfied you are with your life on a scale from 1-10, the Amish turned out to be as happy as the Forbes 400. Could the Amish’s independence from technology be behind this trend?

Curious to see what other populations were “happy”, I googled “Happiness Survey” and click on a link to a BBC news article. Title: Nigeria tops happiness survey. The other top five, in order, were Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Puerto Rico. The United States sat at 16th.

Another interesting article I found talked about a study regarding children, technology, and stress. After reading the first two articles, the verdict of this one surprised me. Today’s youth have become so technology dependent, that removal of technology would lead to extreme stress. However, in the context of my peers, this conclusion isn’t actually that alarming. Excluding hours spent sleeping, I would estimate that many of my teenage peers spend less than an hour without having access to their internet, cell phone, iPod, computer, or TV. I myself realize the dependency I have on technology, having experienced the chaos of not having my phone with me or the frustration of having my internet go down. Web 2.0 has only tightened the chain; social networking sites like Facebook, or media sharing sites like Youtube have expanded the internet so it is no longer just a place to send emails and look up information. Thus it is only natural now that a break from our dependence on technology is stressful, and yet, this brings up some key points. If the average American is not any happier than they were several decades, and yet, if a separation from technology now brings stress, and consequently, unhappiness, then, without technology, aren’t we unhappier than before? Has our dependence on technology destroyed our ability to draw happiness from things we once did? Or perhaps, has technology created as many new burdens as new joys?

I would like to end with the rest of the quote from the Dalai Lama:

“In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace.”

Thus, I would argue that technology is neither human progress nor regress, at least as far as happiness is concerned. Technology is simply a physical means of achieving things, it does not promote happiness or stress. Humans do that to themselves, and technology is just a means, just like everything else, to do so.

An International Perspective of the President-Elect

Without doubt the biggest news of this past week is the election of Senator Barack Obama for the next president of the United States, winning in a sweeping 364 to 173 electoral vote victory over Republican candidate Senator John McCain. This election made history in many ways, and for many, this is at last a change for the better, eight years due. In an era where, at times, it seems as if it is the US against the World, with international relations souring across the board and overall international criticism of American government and society on the rise, I was curious to see the global reaction to Obama’s election.

My first stop was the Time article The World's View of Obama's Win, which had perspectives written from eleven different countries. I’d highly suggest you read it, but in any case, here are the some key points that I have selected from each nation:

Malaysia: “In Obama's victory are sown the seeds of great expectations that a truly new chapter will be written in the history of the world.… Muslim nations will have cause to celebrate this triumph; it offers prospects for genuine dialogue and engagement and should witness the politics of diplomacy supplant the politics of war and the theology of terror.”
Hmmmm…. Muslim nations huh? Diplomacy to supplant war? It seems as if this could be a change for the better.

Czech Republic: “I am more glad that Barack Obama won… he will be a President of a new generation — a new type, with a great understanding of the multicultural nature of the contemporary world.”

France: “Anti-Americanism will not disappear as though by magic, but its life will get harder.”
Thanks France.

South Africa: “Obama's election has given hope to people everywhere that change is possible, that this debilitating status quo of a polarized world of "them" and "us" can change…. Today, those who want to end the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance, those who want to promote justice, peace and greater tolerance among different faiths are celebrating because Barack Obama is the new President of the United States.”

Spain: “In this complex period our world is facing, Barack Obama's election has kindled a feeling of hope, one that most Spanish citizens and Europeans share, and one that reflects a shared confidence in the real capacity to build a better world.”

India: “The most important thing that Barack Obama brings to the presidency is his willingness to reason.” (and I must add: “Spreading the wealth a bit in a deeply unequal society is not as offensive to reason as it appeared to Joe the noncertified Plumber.”)
A president who thinks?

Britain: “Our highest priority must be to meet the current challenges in the global economy, building a stable and effective international financial system and addressing the threat of climate change.”

Kenya: “I believe Mr. Obama exhibits many of the best characteristics of our species in terms of intelligence, sensitivity, resolve and a willingness to reason…. We all require a President who will remain calm, focused and hopeful. Well done, America; your democracy has delivered.”
(Obama’s father is Kenyan)

Germany: “Bush is a one-man axis of evil, and Obama the redeemer: "Deliver us, for thine is the kingdom …. But politics is not about redemption…. Will the Euroswooners still love Obama when he presses them for more troops in Afghanistan and real sanctions on Iran?”
Excellent point, Germany. We will see.

Egypt: “The President-elect is an African-American Christian with a Muslim father who lived across many continents and came from humble beginnings. This sends a powerful message to the rest of the world about the need for diversity and building bridges, values that are at the core of any efforts to create a world at peace with itself.”

Singapore: “Obama's election will significantly reduce anti-Americanism…. It will make a huge dent in the strong silent prejudice against blacks in many societies… if we can reduce this deep ethnic prejudice, we may have hope for other ethnic divides… between Israelis and Palestinians, or Tamils and Sinhalese. If we can finally focus on our common humanity, we have a real opportunity to create a better world.”

Wow, so on the whole some very positive reactions. I supposed I shouldn’t be too surprised however, at least based on a poll from the website iftheworldcouldvote.com. According to these polls, only two countries were red (as in for McCain, not as in communist): Macedonia and Albania (okay, and Niue if you count its one vote). Don’t ask me why. The entire rest of the world were all “blue states.”(Some notable statistics: Afghanistan 79.2% in favor of Obama, Canada 89.2% in favor, China 88.1%, France 94.5%, Germany 92.5%, India 86.8%, Iran 80.7%, Iraq 71.4%, Japan 88.4%, Mexico 87.7%, Russia 88.1%, Sudan 92.7%, UK 92.9%) In an era where international relationships are, quite frankly, unavoidable, I believe these polls show that perhaps America has made a wise choice. However, I am curious as to whether the majority of these feelings are based on Obama’s actual proposed policy, or perhaps rather his slogan of “Change”, sometime I feel the entire world would agree we need. In the end, only time will tell.
God Bless America.

Windows 7: The Perfect Balance Between Idealism and Pragmatism?

A PC guy myself, I was happy this week to see the article title First look at Windows 7's User Interface appear on my homepage. For those of you not quite as computer-obsessed as myself, Windows 7 is the next version of Windows, the successor to Windows Vista and set to be released sometime next year (or Jan 2010) at the latest. In the wake of the disastrous (or at very least disappointing) release of Windows Vista, with numerous bugs and compatibility issues, Microsoft is supposedly planning to release Windows 7 ahead of schedule.

In order to first understand why I view Windows 7 as a possible perfect balance between idealism and pragmatism, we must first take a look its predecessors, Windows XP and Windows Vista. Released five years apart, the longest gap between Windows operating system releases, Windows XP and Vista are very different in almost every aspect. For most users, Windows XP had become the norm. While functioning similarity to the Windows OS’s before it, XP brought a newer, sleeker interface and increased stability and efficiency; and the result was a very reliable and user-friendly operating system. Paired with its long existence (a full five years before the arrival of Windows Vista), Windows XP became the standard definition of Windows. Towards the end of its life, however, XP began to fall behind the times. Security was lacking in comparison to today’s new security threats, and on the whole, while XP functioned properly, its appearance was showing signs of its age, lacking the image of sleekness that other technology had developed since its release.

Thus, the release of Vista was heavily anticipated. Press releases and leaks showed a gleaming new OS, complete with amped up and entirely new features, not to mention heavily increased security functions. And yet, upon its release, numerous issues began to surface. There were complaints about its cost, hardware requirements, digital rights management, and most of all, compatibility issues. The OS that had seemed so appealing, the image of the future, lacked all the reliability that Windows XP had. Indeed, Vista was a new look, one that called to the numerous users tired of the XP appearance; but for many, the issues with compatibility and other bugs were too great to ignore. Many eager Vista customers switched back to Windows XP; in fact, computer companies returned from selling exclusively Windows Vista computers to computers where the buyer had a choice as to which OS they would want. For all its ideas and innovations, Vista simply was not a pragmatic choice.

I, for one, have abstained from upgrading to Vista. I’ve modded my version of XP so its appearance and functionality is more Vista-esque, but at the core, it is still plain old reliable XP. Nevertheless, I am very eager for Windows 7. Like many users who have stuck with XP, I hope Windows 7 will have the perfect balance; the sleekness and new functionality of Vista paired with the reliability and user-friendliness of XP. This recent press release seems to promise just that. Right away the article states:

“Windows 7 will not contain anything like the kind of far-reaching architectural modifications that Microsoft made with Windows Vista. ….While Windows 7 doesn't undo these architectural changes—they were essential for the long-term health of the platform—it equally hasn't made any more. Any hardware or software that works with Windows Vista should also work correctly with Windows 7, so unlike the transition from XP to Vista, the transition from Vista to 7 won't show any regressions; nothing that used to work will stop working. So, rather than low-level, largely invisible system changes, the work on Windows 7 has focused much more on the user experience.”

Just what I wanted to hear. The article goes into much further detail, explaining some of the specific features of Windows 7. Most notable is the taskbar. Based on extensive surveys, Microsoft has learned that the majority of users have anywhere between 5 and 15 windows open at a time, often switching back and forth between at least two or three of these. Thus, Windows 7 will feature only icons in the taskbar; by hovering the mouse over the icon, a user will be able to see miniature images of each tab open in that application. Thus, the complexity of having three internet browser windows open at once with five tabs in each will be a breeze. Essentially, Microsoft has found a meeting place between innovation and practicality, a perfect combination between Vista and XP. The article closes with a few more promising words: “These UI (User Interface) changes represent a brave move by the company. The new UI takes the concepts that Windows users have been using for the last 13 years and extends them in new and exciting ways. Windows 7 may not change much under the hood, but the extent of these interface changes makes it clear that this is very much a major release."

Could Number 7 be the perfect blend between pragmatic old XP and idealist, yet problematic Vista?

I sure hope so.