War

Every year, when Memorial Day comes around, I find myself thinking deeply about the nature of war, sacrifice, heroism and patriotism.  These concepts are complex, but as so often occurs with loaded words, they are tossed about with little regard for the questions that surround them.

I have been watching PBS a lot lately, and they have been previewing a Memorial Day special that pays tribute to veterans.  They show images of young, disabled veterans in their uniforms with amputated limbs.  The images break your heart.  

 

We have so many men and women enduring lifelong pain and suffering because of war.   It is estimated that there are over 1500 soldier amputees from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in addition to the over 7000 who lost their lives.  Over thirty thousand have committed suicide since 9/11.   Rates of divorce, alcoholism and drug addiction are markedly higher among veterans, and our city streets are littered with homeless veterans.  It is impossible to accurately estimate the effects of PTSD and other psychological problems associated with war.

 

These US casualties, horrific as they are, pale in comparison to the devastation these wars wrought on the places where they were fought.  It is estimated that over 432,000 civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

All of this suffering and tragedy is the result of wars from which one struggles to find any positive effects or deeper justification at all.  Indeed, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may have been the most grievous mistakes in our nation's history.  The hubris, ignorance and short-sightedness that launched us into those wars almost defies belief.

There are very few wars that one can describe as ‘just wars’.  Every conflict the USA has engaged in since the Korean War (which one can argue had the positive effect of preventing all of Korea turning into North Korea – but could also have probably been avoided with wiser diplomacy) has been a complete debacle and waste of human life and resources.

 

We honor our veterans on Memorial Day because we must recognize sacrifice even when the justification for that sacrifice has been proven to be non-existent and the sacrifice itself accomplished nothing.  We honor them as patriots, but what does that mean?  It is not their love of country that is so moving, but rather their good intentions and their love and sacrifice for their fellow soldiers, which can carry them through even when the larger goal proves to be a fiction.

 

If we truly wish to honor the sacrifice of our veterans, then we should learn the lessons from the past and avoid interminable wars and conflicts of the future.  Easier said than done, one might say, but the rising tide of bellicose and jingoistic posturing by our elected representatives and various other pundits is an alarming signal that we are almost eagerly expecting and courting conflict in the near future.  If history is any guide, then those conflicts will have been avoidable and unconscionable.  Let us beware.

Sorry Elon, Full Self-Driving Is Impressive But No Fun!

I have a 2023 Tesla Model 3.  It is my second Tesla and I have enjoyed owning them.  I particularly like the single pedal driving, the acceleration and the handling.  I hope that electric cars will eventually dominate the market, though it seems unlikely that gasoline vehicles will disappear given the challenges of battery range and charging.

Recently Tesla gave me a month of full self-driving capability.  They are clearly making an effort to get more revenue.  After my free month, they offered to let me continue using it for a subscription price of $99/month, or to purchase it for $8000.

 

I was quite excited to experiment with the full self-driving mode.  From a technology point of view this capability is quite impressive.  The military research agency DARPA held a competition (the Grand Challenge) in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in 2004 to spur development of autonomous vehicles.  No one was able to claim the prize that year, but in 2005 several teams successfully completed the course.  In 2012 DARPA altered the competition to be an Urban Challenge, and six teams were able to complete the course.

 

The sophistication of sensors and software and the sheer power of computation necessary to drive autonomously is mind blowing.  The first time I put in a destination and triggered the full self-driving mode it was quite exhilarating to watch and feel the vehicle move on its own - the wheel turning, the engine accelerating and braking, the turn signals going on and off.  It was highly entertaining for about 10 minutes.

 

Then the novelty began to wane and I noticed that the driving mode was quite conservative.  The car never exceeded the speed limit (understandably – who would pay the ticket?) and often went well below the speed limit as it navigated obstacles, other cars, pedestrians, sharp turns, limited visibility and all the other things that humans have to monitor and respond to while driving.

 

I checked the control part of my Tesla monitor and saw that I could choose ‘Chill’, ‘Average’ or ‘Assertive’ as the mode for self-driving.  I switched the mode to Assertive, but didn’t note much of a change other than a bit more acceleration after a stop.

 

I used the automated self-driving mode a few more times during my free month to demonstrate it to friends and visitors, but that was it.  It simply didn’t appeal to me.  I couldn’t imagine using it on a daily basis.  I would go mad from impatience!  It drives like the elderly person that I refuse to believe I will eventually become.

 

I suppose I can see it being useful for long trips when the fatigue of driving would be an incentive, but only if it were completely dependable so that you could do other things.  Otherwise the sacrifice in lost time due to its observance of the speed limit would not be worth the bit of relaxation you might obtain.

 

The technology may evolve over time to become closer to a normal driving experience.  But if you think about it, we humans are impatient creatures and most of us drive a lot more energetically than a self-driving vehicle will ever have permission to emulate.

 

Is this really the future of driving?  Personally, I can’t see it.  I would only use this feature if I were forced to.  It may one day be ideal for the elderly or those with disabilities or some form of Uber/taxi transport.  But as a means for getting from point A to point B on a daily basis I suspect that it would drive most people crazy.

 

Sorry to be such a buzz kill.  The technology is impressive, but the result is not.

 

Tyrannies of the Majority and Minority

I have heard people defend our electoral college process of choosing the president as a way to avoid the so-called tyranny of the majority.  And recently, there has been much written about the tyranny of a small radical minority of the republican party, who have been able to stall or derail legislation.  What are the concepts behind these tyrannies and what can be done to limit the wrong that such tyrannies may do?

The USA proclaims itself a democracy.  This means that the people should dictate what the government does. In making decisions, a government either directly polls the people or does so through their representatives.  In general, the majority determines the decision.  The minority of people or representatives who voted against the decision may feel aggrieved, but if a decision must be made then it is only logical to follow the will of the majority. 

 

However, there may be situations where the minority may not only be disappointed but actually harmed or persecuted or significantly disadvantaged by a majority decision.  The challenge for government is to find ways to prevent this from happening while not allowing minority interests to acquire more influence or power than they actually deserve.

 

Where majority rule may err is when it is specifically targeting minority groups.  As long as the issues it addresses apply to all citizens, then it makes perfect sense to go with the majority.

 

One of the primary means for preventing tyranny or oppression is to establish a basic set of rights that even the majority may not violate.  Another way to protect minority groups is to have a judicial branch that evaluates laws and decisions on the basis of fairness and reasonableness.

 

To call the electoral college process a way to prevent the tyranny of the majority doesn’t make sense.  There is absolutely no reason why the majority should not choose the president.  The choice is impacting all citizens equally, and no minority is being specifically disadvantaged.  It is simply nonsensical to say that a minority of citizens should hold sway over the choice for president.

There is also the potential for the tyranny of the minority in government.  Powerful or wealthy special interest groups that represent a minority can play an outsize role in determining policies.  Also, small groups within the legislature can use various ploys to advance their minority views. 

 

There are safeguards built into our governing process that attempt to mitigate the potential for tyranny of the majority – filibusters, super-majorities, lobbying and PAC activities, and various other arcane practices.  But these seem to now be more likely to contribute to a tyranny of the minority.  For example, most of the country would like stricter gun control but a minority interest group prevents that.  The same is true for reproductive freedoms.

 

Alas, governing is a messy process and there is no perfect way to balance everyone’s interests.  This is one of the reasons that a constitution and form of government should evolve and not be set in stone.  As our society and the world change, so must also the way that we govern ourselves.