One of my favourite podcasts Philosophy Bites recently featured a political philosopher, Raymond Guess, that made me begin to rethink my take on political realism.

He describes three different senses in which the term “realism” is used. The first is the philosophical sense in terms of how we perceive reality. The second is the International Relations (IR) Theory sense which is about how nations act only upon their interests to increase their power. Guess explains that realism in political philosophy doesn’t mean either of those things. His sense of realism is an attempt to not be deceived or not to engage in wishful thinking about the world. In other words: to see the world how it truly is. This type of realism is practised in politics in the following two ways:

1) to uncover the lies we tell to ourselves and to others (ie. wishful thinking)
2) to uncover ideological structures

In other words Guess is arguing for a realism that is not ideological, but closer to the scientific realism of understanding reality. It is an argument for transparency, pragmatism and honesty in politics. Ideologues on both the right and the left might argue that they are doing just this, since they expressly already know “how the world works”. But their failure is found in their a priori world view. Furthermore, their ideology is often easily exposed.

We do see events of “accidental realism” (reminds me of Nick Denton’s quote that Gawker Media “may inadvertently commit journalism.”) coming from traditional ideologues: hard-hitting investigative journalism, documentary films and the like. However these acts are often not given the credit they deserve as they are viewed through an ideological lens. A true practitioner of political realism would not overlook these acts.

Guess’s realism is a scientific approach to politics. Whether or not this approach is generally attainable considering our partisan, emotional political-media-industrial complex, is an interesting debate that should be had. In the meantime, for those of us analysing politics on the edge, I think this is an approach well worth adopting.

Listen to the entire podcast below or download it directly from here.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I recently picked up an old friend, Jared Diamond’s Collapse. As I sit in the glorious comfort of Dubai, where I walk towards the titanic Burj Khalifa everyday, I can’t help but find stronger arguments in Diamond’s thesis about the limits of human civilization. Yet what Diamond has me rethinking now is not the fall of human society but first contact, an issue I considered on this blog years ago—when primitive societies suddenly encounter people from technologically advanced civilizations.

In Disney’s movie, Pocahontas , an Amerindian “princess” romances the explorer John Smith and stops a war between the British settlers and the American natives. This sanitized fairytale of our history is in fact far from a real first contact experience. Experience and history suggests that first contact between civilizations, both ancient and modern, was not nearly so friendly (with the exception of some isolated island encounters). Yet how are we to imagine the first contact between ancient Babylonians and Hittites? Or Romans and Gauls? Did they shout “hello!” or draw swords?

Jared Diamond has some experience with such first contact situations and suggests they may often have been hostile and dangerous. From his book Collapse:

Over the course of my biological fieldwork in New Guinea I have lived through such “first contact situation,” as they are called, and I found them dangerous and utterly terrifying. In such situations, the “natives” initially regard the Europeans as trespassers and correctly percieve that any intruder may bring threats to their health, lives, and land ownership. Neither side knows what the other will do, both sides are tense and frightened, both are uncertain whether to flee or to start shooting, and both are scrutinzing the other side for a gesture that could hint that the others might panic and shoot first. To turn a first-contact situation into a friendly relationship, let alone to survive the situation, requires extreme caution and patience.

What should we think of the choice to greet or fight a new civilization? Diamond focuses on the importance of a friendly relationship because the subject is how the Norse settlers in Greenland and their failure to learn from the Inuit how to hunt and survive. But treating new emissaries from a stronger civilization too kindly could result in subjucation and extinction, as Christopher Columbus writes of his first encounter with natives in the West Indies:

They willingly traded everything they owned… . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… . They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

How a small civilization going about its business deals with a sudden first contact with a previously unknown, technologically superior civilization, is called by anthropologists the Outside Context Problem—an event almost unimaginable until it happens—and can seal the society’s fate. The vast majority of such smaller civilizations were destroyed or assimilated, while a very few survived. The most successful of such situations was probably the Japanese encounter with Perry and his black ships in the mid-19th century, and the decision of feudal to Japan to adopt education, government, medicine, technology, and military tactics from the West.

The Handbook of 5GW, edited by our blogfriend Dr Dan Abbott, and contributed to by your correspondent and a number of other blogfriends, has been released on the Kindle! Buy early and buy often. The dead tree edition will be released anon.

I have recently read with interest about Dr. Dennis Meadows and his co-authorship in 1972 of a book The Limits to Growth. Published just as the environmental movement was launching on to the national political stage, the book asserted that there were limits to resources, limits to growth, and the inevitable tendency was to consume resources even as they declined so as to significantly overshoot a sustainable population—followed by a dramatic collapse. Witness this graph, as appeared on a documentary from about that time, which shows a rapid decline in resources, with the year 2010 as the approximate peak of growth, followed by a collapse in the food supply and the human population in the following decades.

The criticism of the book then in 1972 is the same as it is today: the analysis was inherently pessimistic because it assumed the exponential growth of population and pollution, without allowing for technologies that would expand resources and control pollution. And of course, the dire predictions of the book have not come to pass at the time predicted, and resource consumption has arguably increased and accelerated. Yet in the “Thirty Year Update” of the book, republished in 2004, Dr. Meadows had a more optimistic view of the present and the future.

“In 1972 it was inconceivable to most people that the physical impact of humanity’s activities could ever grow large enough to alter basic natural processes of the globe. But now we routinely observe, acknowledge, and discuss the ozone hole, destruction of marine fisheries, climate change and other global problems.”

How can Dr. Meadows be more optimistic today than he was in 1972? Was he over pessimistic then? Arguably yes. Is he over optimistic now? Possibly so.

I find myself split because I adhere so closely to two very different schools of thought.

(1) The economists are right—the pessimistic view denies the economic forces that have brought so many changes in modern society. Resources are limited, but the story of human development is the discovery of new resources and new technology that has meant the general trajectory of society has been to grow and improve.

(2) Malthus, or Dr. Meadows, or Jared Diamond, will ultimately be right—realistically, there must be limits to growth, and the only question is when we will reach those limits. There were about 4 billion people on the earth in 1972. There are over 6 billion today. In my lifetime the population will likely expand to 9 billion. There cannot be enough water, food, and energy to allow us to enjoy a growing prosperous society.

In sum, I think the question must be asked—how far are we from the true limits of civilization?

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford is on the one-hand a post-revisionist biography of the world’s most successful conqueror, and on the other a social, political and economic history of the impact of the Mongol Empire on the world. Spanning nearly eight centuries of time and thousands of miles of area, Weatherford has his work cut out for him. All things considered, he does an excellent job

I greatly appreciated two aspects of the book. First was the historiographical analysis of how Genghis Khan has been perceived through time by historians, many of whom are descendants of the people conquered by Genghis Khan and his offspring. It is this that has lead to a wholly negative view of the Mongols. Weatherford argues that we in the West have the French philosopher Montesquieu to thank for our cultural recollection of the Mongols as “barbarians at the gate”. When examining history as far back as Genghis, it is important to amend the Churchillian maxim that “history is written by the victors”. History is written by the survivors.

The second aspect of the book I appreciated was Jack Weatherford’s hands-on approach to history. Although he mostly relied on The Secret History of the Mongols for details of the Great Khan’s life, he took it upon himself to go to the locales in Mongolia and along the Silk Road that were important to the development of Genghis and his ancestors. In the introduction Weatherford states: “Books can lie, but places never do.” Anyone who has ever been on a battlefield tour, I am sure would confirm that.

Overall I recommend this book. At least in the English-speaking world, I think it will extract Genghis Khan out of a grudge-ridden history, and hopefully spark a new round of examination. Genghis Khan was obviously an important historical figure, influencing much of his contemporary world and the world that came after it. What needs to be cleared up is how he was an influence. The Mongols were not merely a bloodthirsty horde, an early Yellow Peril. There are many subtle ways in which Genghis Khan and his ancestors influenced us. Read the book to find out more.

ADDENDUM: I have been wanting to read this book ever since watching the authour in this CSPAN video, which I also recommend. I listened to the audiobook, which had an okay narrator. If you have time to read, get the book. If not, the audio will do in a pinch. Lastly, want to see Younghusband and Roy of Mutantfrog.com in Mongolian garb? Of course you do!

Via mechamecha. Learn more about air acoustics. Also see Russian, British, and Canadian war tubas.

Comments are closed—please join the fray on this post at MutantFrog.com.

Japan’s Democratic Party, which took power in a historic election last year, has suffered a setback as it lost seats in yesterday’s upper house election. While they continue to hold power through the lower house, they will find it very difficult to take form a majority in the upper house and pass legislation. Beyond this, an interesting point for non-Japanese viewers of the post-election shuffling is that Prime Minister Kan (who has only been in the job for less than two months) has announced that there will be no changes to his cabinet. This is despite the fact that Keiko Chiba, Minister of Justice, just lost her seat in yesterday’s election.

As background, Chiba is a notably liberal member of the Diet and was appointed to Minister of Justice under Prime Minsiter Hatoyama last year. She lost her seat for reelection in Kanagawa Prefecture, which she has held since 1986. She was most likely defeated because activists targeted her for her liberal views, which include allowing foreigners to vote in local elections, allowing separate family names for men and women after marriage, and refusing to enforce the death penalty. She is to be replaced by Kenji Nakanishi, a former director of JP Morgan in Japan, who ran as the candidate of the upstart reformist “Your Party.”

How does she remain a member of cabinet? It sounds peculiar from the American perspective, where all members of the President’s cabinet are forbidden from serving in the legislature and are never subject to election. It also sounds strange from the British perspective, where all members of the cabinet are required to be members of parliament. Yet Japan has a fusion model, where private citizens can serve in the cabinet, and the only requirement is that members of parliament (who can come from either the lower or upper house) constitute the majority of cabinet ministers. Article 68 of the Japanese Constitution reads:

The Prime Minister shall appoint the Ministers of State. However, a majority of their number must be chosen from among the members of the Diet.

That means that of the seventeen members of the current cabinet, nine must be elected members of the Diet and the remaining eight can be private citizens. In practice it is very rare for more than one or two members of the cabinet to be from the private sector. Koizumi’s first cabinet had just one private citizen, and his second just two.

The DPJ made a big song and dance after their victory last year that they were going to copy the British “Westminster System,” promoted by academics as an efficient system, with no private citizens serving in the cabinet. But by keeping Chiba in the important post of Minister of Justice they’re reverting to Japan’s unique system of the allowing non-legislators in the cabinet.

ENDNOTE: Interestingly enough, two of the three “foreigners” serving in the upper house were up for election: Sha Renho, who is half Taiwanese, and Kyonje Park, who is half Korean. Both are former journalists, both are members of the DPJ, and both have non-Japanese fathers, which means they were denied citizenship until the law was changed in the 1980s. Despite this similar background in a uniquely homogenous country, their results in this popular election were entirely different. Renho won the largest proportion of votes of any candidate in her district in Tokyo, while Park, who ran as a proportional representation candidate, lost along with a number of other DPJ candidates. Park was also embroiled in some election scuffles with conservative Diet members Ishihara and Yosano that had them dueling against each other in street speeches from their soundtrucks.

A town in Yemen has the name Al Qaeda (Arabic for ‘the base‘) and is suffering for it. On the border of the old North Yemen and South Yemen, the town was once a commercial hub where custom duties on trade between north and south Yemen were collected decades ago. Today it has a population of 70,000 people, of whom 90 percent live below the poverty line. It doesn’t help that Osama bin Laden’s mother is from Yemen and he spent many years in the country which continues to be a hub for Al Qaeda.

Today, residents of the town face suspicion wherever they go. They get scholarships to go overseas but face trouble because Al-Qaeda is their hometown. They travel to even other Arab countries for medical treatment and are detained at the airport because Al-Qaeda is in the passport. In an attempt to clear the record, the local security chief has said that the town has many people who drink alcohol and consume drugs, and the town has become a safe haven for drug dealers. Yet the town is apparently a pretty beautiful place and the people shown hospitality towards strangers—both as part of local culture and in an attempt to improve their image.

Following on my post on the flags of the Muslim world, by popular request I now write on the flags of Northern Europe that contain crosses, and briefly explore the origin and evolution of the common design.

The story begins with the flag of Denmark, which claims that its flag, know as the Dannebrog, is the oldest flag in the world. Legend states the flag fell from the sky at the Battle of Lyndanisse, during the Danish crusade in Estonia, on June 15, 1219. The flag has been the flag of Denmark and the Danish kings ever since.

In Sweden, according to local lore, the 12th century Swedish king Eric the Holy saw a golden cross in the sky as he landed in Finland during the First Swedish Crusade in 1157, and adopted this sign of God as his royal banner. If true, it would make the flag older than the Dannebrog, but there is apparently insufficient historical evidence. The alternative theory is that it was a resistance flag against the Danish flag, in which case it was created during the reign of King Charles Knutsson in the early 15th century.

The flags of Denmark and Sweden are old, but the remaining flags are modern creations. Norway used the Danish flag during the Danish-Norwegian union that ended in the 16th century, and kept the Danish flag with slight modifications until Norway adopted its current flag in 1821.

The flag of the Faroe Islands (see CA post) was first made by Faroese students in Copenhagen and later brought to the Faroes where it was first hoisted in 1919. It entered common use in 1931. When Denmark was occupied by the Nazis, British troops took the islands and a need to distinguish the ships of the Faroes from those of occupied Denmark occurred, so approved the flag, which was later officially recognized with the Home Rule Act of 23 March 1948.

Finland is one of the newest of these states mentioned and has the newest flag. The current blue-crossed design was first used by a Helsinki yacht club founded in 1861, which was similar to the flag of the St. Petersburg Yacht Club, founded the previous year. It became the flag shortly after Finland gained independence in 1917. And in Iceland, the flag was officially adopted in 1915 and became the national flag upon independence in 1948. While taking the design from Denmark, the blue is the color of the mountains, white represents the snow and ice, and red its volcanoes.

The British cousins of the Nordic states also have a cross in the flag, but the offset is symmetrical, and diagonal in some cases. Then there is also the unique British and United Kingdom Flags that were formed as a fusion of multiple crosses.

The flag of England is the St George’s Cross that first appeared as an emblem of England during the Crusades, making it one of the earliest known English emblems. It became the national flag during the sixteenth century. Although it first appeared at around the same time as the Danish and Swedish flags, the cross is not offset like the Nordic flags and is placed in the center of the flag.

Scotland’s flag is based on the a 9th century symbol, which became the national symbol in the 13th century. It became a flag at around the same time as the English flag in the 16th century.

St. Patrick’s flag in Ireland is controversial. The arms of Ireland since the sixteenth century have been a gold harp with silver strings on a blue field, and the X-shaped flag was adopted in the 18th century. Today it is rejected, perhaps partly because it was adopted and modified by the rightist Blueshirts in the early 20th century, but it remains a part of Union Jack.

In 1606, following the Tudor unification of England and Scotland, the flags of England and Scotland were merged to form the flag of Great Britain. Later, the flag of Ireland was included to form the flag of the United Kingdom, or the Union Jack.

As a postscript, we have the flag of Jersey, adopted in its modern form in 1981—it previously used a very similar flag to that of the St. Patrick’s flag.

Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcohol. But why? In objectively reviewing for the ban in the Koran, one can only leave bewildered. Occasional passages that do not refer to alcohol as it is known today is interpreted as being a complete prohibition on alcohol consumption, without exception.

The Koran has a few sections that cryptically refer to alcohol. In 4:43, Muslims are forbidden to attend to prayers while intoxicated; in 2:219, intoxicants are said to contain good and evil, but the evil is greater than the good. In these two sections, the word for “intoxicated” is sukara which is derived from the word “sugar” and means drunk or intoxicated. In 5:90, “intoxicants” are called “abominations of Satan’s handiwork” intended to turn people away from God and prayer, and Muslims are therefore ordered to abstain. Here, the word is al-khamr, which is related to the verb “to ferment,” and probably refers to fermented sugar drinks. This word could be used to describe other intoxicants such as the Roman era wine.

Yet these stern words from the prophet didn’t stop the keen chemists of the early Islamic world from vigrously involving themselves in the developing alcohol. Indeed, they pioneered it! Distilling alcohol as a pure compound was first achieved by Muslim chemists in the 8th century, and like the English words algebra and alchemy, the word alcohol comes from Arabic. Persian scientists later mastered distillation, which was introduced to Europe in the 12th century by various European authors who translated and popularized the discoveries of the Muslim world.

Exactly when alcohol became banned in the Arab world and the Muslim world beyond is unclear, and it is all but impossible to find any objective history of the topic. All that is known is that Islamic scientists. But the debate lasted for many, many centuries, and the case of coffee shows an interesting example of compromise. Coffee from Ethiopia developed into a popular drink in Islam in the 15th century, but due to its intoxicating effect, it was banned in Egypt and Mecca in the 16th century for several decades. The ban, however, could not overcome the popularity of the drink and after several decades, the religious leaders of both Egypt and Mecca gave up on trying to ban the drink. Today, drinking and talking over cups of concentrated Arabic coffee is one of the most popular social activities among the Bedou of the Arabian peninsula.