Art + Sport = ?

Sport, Science and Art each have strengths, but none of them has proven capable of replacing War in its natural form. It seems plausible, however, that one could create a true War-class ECS by synthesizing the three together. In other words, we might be able to reverse-engineer the system we need from the parts that we already have.

A good place to start is with some combination of Art and Sport. In imitation of Sport, we need a hierarchical competition format that will provide a consistently high level of challenge to a wide range of participants. In imitation of Art, we need an aesthetics-based approach that will remove our system from the realm of physical dominance and prevent it from being weaponized. As it happens, there are several notable hybrids that already match this recipe. One of the most prominent is the Olympic-class sport of figure skating, which is judged equally on athletic talent and aesthetics. Other Olympic sports where aesthetics play at least some role in the judging include gynmastics, skateboarding and diving.

There are also a number of hybrids on the other side of the Art/Sport line. One of the most influential is “slam poetry,” a dynamic spoken-word art form centered around competitions judged with Olympic-style scores by an ad hoc panel drawn from the audience. Another is the California-based phenomenon of “clown” or “crump dancing” (as chronicled in the documentary Rize) which similarly takes on aspects of Sport while retaining a focus on aesthetics. In addition, talent competitions ranging from the elite Van Cliburn piano competition to televised reality competitions such as American Idol also meld together these basic ingredients of competition and aesthetics.

When, however, it comes time to mix in our third ingredient, the objective legitimacy of Science, none of these hybrids proves suitable. The problem is that aesthetic judgments are generally considered irreduceably subjective, matters of individual taste that can neither be quantified nor made universal. The problem is made especially acute by the fact that no widely endorsed definition of aesthetic value in Art exists. If a thing cannot be defined, it cannot be measured, and if it cannot be consistently measured it might as well, from a scientific point of view, not even exist.

NEXT WEEK: Quantifying the unquantifiable.

Art

Fourth in a series on ending war.

Art may seem like a odd substitute for War, but there’s reason to not dismiss the idea out of hand.  We already know that Art can be a powerful economic engine, legions of starving artists and musicians notwithstanding.  For proof just look at the movie and music industries.  What may be more of surprise is that Art has played a role on the battlefield as well.  In the days of the Roman Empire –which lasted for well over a thousand years –conquered cultures were kept in thrall to the Empire as much by the superiority of Roman art and culture as by the threat of force.  As much as having Roman overlords may have rankled, few barbarians truly wished to trade in their refined Roman existence for a return to crude tribal living.  Similarly, on the other side of the world, the Chinese Empire survived being repeatedly invaded and conquered by barbarian hordes because Chinese art and culture were so advanced that the invaders inevitably assimilated into the host culture instead of the other way around, as the physical conquerors became the culturally conquered.

But how does Art do versus our criteria?

  1. It makes jobs that challenge individuals and nations to their limits:  The answer here is both yes and no.  No, certainly, with regards to nations –no country faces its greatest challenge in maintaining itself at the cutting edge of artistic advance.   Yes, on occasion, with regards to individuals.  True, a hobbyist painter or casual guitar player isn’t experiencing much of a challenge, but dance and acrobatics challenge the physical limits of the human body, special-effects laden movies challenge the limits of technology, conceptual art challenges the intellect, “diva” songs challenge the human vocal range, and so forth and so on.  Any artist at the top of their field is probably at or near the limits of what is humanly possible in one way or another.
  2. It distributes jobs:  Here we find a deficiency.  There’s no real structure to distribute Art jobs in the way we found in other ECS candidates.  Furthermore, as with Sport, we’ve become segregated into producers and consumers with regards to Art.  Legions of musicians and artists starve while a small handful of celebrity entertainers serve as the primary artists in the lives of millions.  This is a trend that would need to be reversed before Art could actually serve as a legitimate Employment-Creation System (ECS).
  3. It makes jobs meaningful by:
    1. serving as a test of ideologies:  Here art does surprisingly well.  Didactic art, which explicitly promotes a given ideology, is rarely a success, but every piece of art, no matter how innocuous it may seem, presupposes some philosophy, some viewpoint about the world.  The way an artist solves artistic problems actually says a great deal about his or her views on how to solve general problems of life.  In addition, art cannot be as easily alienated as technology.  You can imitate a foreign art form, but you cannot create valid original work in the same vein until you internalize the ideology that gave birth to the artwork in the first place
    2. being definitive:  The killer subclause strikes again.  An artistic triumph cannot be definitive in the same way as a physical triumph, because Art is too subjective.  There is no common standard for Art, and no two observers can be relied upon to agree at all times on the merits of any piece of art.  Each region prefers its own art, yet even two siblings who grew up in the same household can have opposite artistic tastes.

Things seem bleak.  With Art, Science and Sport all striking out as potential substitutes, we are left stuck with War and Consumerism as the dysfunctional institutions that are destroying us, but that we cannot do without.

And so this is the end.  Or is it?  If a natural substitute for War and/or Consumerism existed, it would likely already be in use.  But what about a synthetic substitute?  Each of our candidates was strong in some areas, and weak in others.  Could we add together the best of each, and create a new system capable of getting the job done?

We’ll take a moment next week to explore the nature of identity, and then return in two weeks to see whether or not we can go ahead and construct a synthetic Employment-Creation System capable both of rescuing Capitalism and putting an end to War.

NEXT WEEK:  Identity

Science

Third in a series on ending war.

If Sport can neither take the place of War, nor of Consumerism, then how about Science and Technology?  Together they compose a powerful economic engine, with advances in technology shaping and reshaping the global economy both through the development of new consumable products and through technological advances in the production, distribution and marketing of those products.  And unlike the deliberately trivial consequences of achievements in Sport, achievements in Science have a very real, significant and consequential impact on the world.  But how does it perform against our criteria?

  1. It creates jobs that challenge individuals and nations to their limits: Science and Technology do reasonably well on this criteria.  Individuals are certainly challenged by science to their intellectual limits, and scientific achievements such as the construction of supercolliders or the exploration of space can challenge a nation’s resources and capacity.
  2. It distributes jobs:  This criteria is a bit of a cipher.  Science and technology jobs are certainly well-distributed throughout society, but always adjuncts to other organizations.  Scientists and technicians work for governments, for corporations, for universities, and so forth, but we don’t necessarily see the same kind of distributive hierarchy we’ve seen for other Employment-Creation Systems (ECS).  In addition, science and technology jobs tend to be the province of an educated intellectual elite, rather than a general population.
  3. It makes jobs meaningful:
    1. by serving as a test of ideologies:  Science and technology diverge here.  Science and scientific innovation bears a strong imprint of the ideology that creates it, in terms of such things as decisions over what projects should be funded, and what lines of inquiry are worthwhile.  However, technology is nearly useless as a test of ideology, because it can so easily be alienated from its origins.  A computer is a computer, no matter where it is made and what the ideology is of the people who manufactured it.
    2. by being definitive:  Here the same subclause that ruined Sport claims another victim. The test of a science, not in absolute terms, but in terms of its place in human life, is the technology you can create with it, and the test of a technology is the usages to which you can devote it.  In practice, what this means is that Science and Technology cannot take the place of War, because it is too easy and too common to adapt them to the purposes of War.  The pursuit of Science may be an end to itself, but the test of Science devolves into the same old physical battle, except played out in a high-tech manner.

In fact, as it so happens, there is a wonderful historical example of Scientific competition used between nations as a substitute for open aggression –the Cold War.  The United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were unwilling to risk the disastrous consequences of an all out War between superpowers, so instead they sublimated their struggle for ideological superiority into a race to achieve clear scientific and technological superiority.  On the plus side, this led to some amazing scientific breakthroughs, most notably the achievement of manned spaceflight and the lunar landing.  In addition, it produced an extended period of relative peace between the two nations.  Finally, it arguably achieved a victory without violence for the United States when the USSR peacefully disbanded.

On the negative side, however, the arms race –the uglier side of scientific progress –led to the invention and stockpiling of “doomsday weapons,” weapons capable of killing vast numbers of people at once, many of which are no longer in secure hands.  In addition, the “peacetime” of the Cold War was in some senses a fiction, since the United States and the USSR were still fighting out their ideological battles in “hot” wars conducted through intermediaries like the Vietnamese and the Koreans.  So we might consider this a partial solution, but one that comes at what is potentially too high a cost.

NEXT WEEK: Art

Sport

Second in a series on ending war.

The most obvious and ancient substitute for War is Sport. The origins of the first athletic game are lost in the mists of history, which means that Sport has been helping individuals and nations release their aggressions for a very long time.  And given the billions of dollars spent on Sport, it stands a proven economic engine. But how does Sport perform against our crucial criteria?

  1. It creates jobs that challenge nations and individuals to their utmost limits:  The answer to this one is both yes and no.  Sport challenges individuals physically to their limits, to the very limits of human possibility.  Arguably Sport can also challenge individuals mentally and emotionally.  But Sport doesn’t challenge nations in the same way that War does, nor does Sport encompass a wide range of arenas-of-challenge, such as technology, in the same way that War does.  True, there are technologies attached to Sport, better running shoes and sports drinks, illegal performance enhancers such as steroids, high performing playing surfaces, split-second cameras, instant-replay television, advanced prosthetics, and so forth.  However, there is a very real sense in which such things must remain peripheral to Sport in order for Sport to maintain its integrity.
  2. It distributes jobs:  In modern life, Sport has divided into increasingly segregated groups of participants and viewers, with there being a relatively small pool of full-time, dedicated athletes versus a relatively large pool of people whose only connection to athletics is through watching it on television.  That, however, is a reflection on the modern condition and not on Sport itself.  Theoretically, everyone can participate in athletics in some capacity.  Like War, corporations and Feudalism, Sport has a pyramidal hierarchy that distributes athletic experiences, but in this case, the nature of the pyramid is quite different.  Instead of a system where orders filter down from the top to the bottom in a chain of command, the Sport hierarchy is based on a League system.  At the top of any major sport is an elite national or international league, whose stars are the best at their sport in the world, who command huge salaries, and whose numbers are quite limited.  At another level down are minor leagues, less prestigious associations of players that often serve as training grounds for the lucky few who make it up to the next level.  Further down are college leagues, amateur leagues, youth leagues and on down to office teams, neighborhood pickup teams, and so forth.  In general, the system guarantees that any given player will have a chance to compete against other players of similar skill level and commitment.  Very few people can play at the top of any league, but very few people can’t play somewhere at the bottom.  In addition to its main hierarchy, Sport also generates a wide host of auxiliary jobs surrounding the athletes –coaches, trainers, athletic gear producers, and so forth.
  3. It makes jobs meaningful
    1. by serving as a test of ideologies:  This is where it really begins to fall apart for Sport.  Athletic contests are games, and their rules are arbitrary.  This causes two significant problems for us.  First, it raises the issue of picking a sport to serve as the locus of meaning.  In other words, if the United States wants to make American Football the game that decides geopolitical destiny, and Canada wants to make it Hockey, how can that decision possibly be arbitrated?  Second, it reduces the expressive power of Sport in relation to ideology.  In other words, one team may play a completely honest game, the other team may cheat when it can, and such things may offer consequential ideology-based differences between the teams, but both teams basically have to agree to abide by all standard rules in order to play the game in the first place.  That limits the impact an ideology can have on a team’s success, which in turn limits the value of sport as a test of ideologies.
    2. by being definitive:  This is the killer blow for War versus Sport.  War is definitive, and Sport is not.  For example, take a look at the most prestigious, well-respected, universally endorsed athletic competition on the planet, the Olympics.  The Olympics represent a wide range of sports, selected by an international panel, which lessons the issues discussed in regards to subclause “a.”  If any athletic event could stand in the place of War, this would be it.  But when Hitler’s Aryan athletes were humiliated by African-American runner Jesse Owens in the Berlin Olympics, Hitler didn’t retire from the world stage in disgrace, his racist ideology definitively debunked.  Instead, he invaded Poland.  Sport can never be the last word when it comes to physical conflict in any world in which War still exists. No nation with the power to reshape the world through War is going to settle for having its reputation be established by Sport instead.

Next Week: Science

I grew up in a generation that vowed never again to go to war. And yet here we are, in it up to our eyeballs all over again. It doesn’t seem to matter who’s in office, or how many protests there are. When will it ever stop? *

In the previous series of blog posts we explored the question of why unemployment is so high, which led to the ways in which Consumerism is coming to the end of its usefulness as an economic engine.  That in turn led us to evaluate War as alternative manufacturer of employment.  Although War initially seemed to us like an ideal employer, we soon discovered a dark side which not only forced a reevaluation of War’s economic strengths, it further led us to the conclusion that War needs to be eliminated as soon as possible if humanity is to survive.

If you recall, we said that Employment-Creation Systems (ECS) need three characteristics in order to be viable.  They need to (1) create jobs, (2) distribute jobs and (3) make jobs meaningful. But in order for our new ECS to additionally serve as a viable replacement for War, we need to expand on those criteria a bit.  A War-replacing ECS needs to:

  1. Create jobs that challenge nations and individuals to their absolute limits.
  2. Match people with those jobs.
  3. Make jobs meaningful by placing them in a larger context that
    1. Serves as a test of competing ideologies
    2. Offers a definitive answer.

The new part of criteria one is important, because people and nations both need continue continual challenges in order to stay at their best.  It’s no coincidence that Wars often come at times of peace and plenitude when things seem almost to be going too smoothly and too well.  Criteria two is no different from any ECS, and we’ve already discussed subclause “a” in criteria three.

Subclause “b,” however, turns out to be the real sticking point, the secret to why War has kept its position of primacy in human affairs over the millennia.  War is definitive.  It has clear winners and losers at the end of contests in which nothing has been held back, and both sides are literally fighting for their lives.  War is physical, and immediate, and its results are self-evident.  For any substitute for War to not devolve into an actual War, therefore, it must offer results equally as incontestable and final.

NEXT WEEK: Play ball!

The Cake is a Lie

Tenth in an ongoing series about the deeper reasons behind the difficulty of finding work

After reading last week’s post you may be thinking that War is such a wonderful thing that we should just forget about peace and just promote nonstop full-time worldwide warfare –and then no one need ever be out of a job ever again.  While this is a strategy that governments have flirted with throughout time, the cold hard fact is that War has reached the very end of its usefulness in human life.  Always possessed of a hideous side beneath the mask of glory,War has become so dysfunctional and destructive that we are fast approaching the point where one of us has to go –either humanity or War.

But what went wrong?  How could such a longstanding relationship have turned so sour?  And what about all the things we just last week claimed make war such an ideal employer?

  1. It creates jobs:  True, but by crippling bodies and destroying infrastructure, it can ruin productivity at the same time.  And War also “cooks the books” so to speak when it comes to lowering unemployment.  Sometimes it does that by creating more jobs –and sometimes it does that by killing off the potentially unemployed.
  2. It matches people with jobs:  True, but the vast majority of wartime jobs are generic “cannon-fodder” positions, base-level soldiers with no particular prior skills, qualifications or future prospects.
  3. It makes jobs meaningful:  It is true that War can bring out the finest and highest in human nature, bravery, honor, ingenuity, courage and so forth.  But War also notoriously brings out the worst and the most base in human nature, including rape, torture, murder, and genocide.  And in terms of helping us discover which ideology is better than which other ideology, war is actually a terrible method..  Figuring out which ideology is better by fighting a war is like figuring out which computer is better by using each one to bust open boulders.  The characteristics that lead it to win such a contest have nothing to do with the important aspects of the computer, and even the computer that emerges victorious is likely to be damaged beyond repair by the exercise.

Even with all these nasty characteristics, War presents itself well enough and performs well enough as an economic engine that it has remained a perennial part of the human experience for untold generations.  Yet there has been a fundamental shift in recent times that has made War unsustainable.

NEXT WEEK:  Why War must be stopped.

War, What is it Good For?

Ninth in an ongoing series about the deeper reasons behind the difficulty of finding work

I’m a huge hippie pacifist. But with all due respect to those great Motown songwriters, Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Strong, the answer to the above question cannot possibly be “absolutely nothing.”  In every generation, in nations across the world, in human societies since the dawn of recorded time, people have gone to war. We must be getting something out of it. Our species –all evidence to the contrary –just isn’t that stupidly self-destructive to keep on pursuing warfare for no reason whatsoever.

There are multiple answers, but one of them is that war, as awful as it may be, is a highly successful Employment-Creation System, under the criteria we established in past weeks.

  1. It creates jobs:  In addition to the millions of people employed directly on the frontlines as soldiers, war employs many millions more in activities directly or indirectly related to war-efforts: in munitions factories, in agricultural production, and so forth and so on. At the conclusion of wars, new jobs are created in cleaning up and rebuilding after the destructiveness of the battles.
  2. It matches people up with jobs:  There’s a large range of specialty positions in most armies, so recruits can theoretically be matched with positions that suit particular skills, interests and talents, ranging from electronics to cooking, to strategic planning.  There’s also ample numbers of positions available for people who are particularly ambitious, or who have exceptional leadership qualities.  In addition, there are roles in armies for people who would have grave troubles fitting into civilian life –people with a strong desire to kill other human beings, for example.As far as how jobs get assigned, however, we’re back once again to the old Feudal pyramidal hierarchy.  In place of a king, the armed forces have a Commander-in-Chief, in places of Dukes and Barons, the armed forces have Generals and Majors, in place of the lower aristocracy, Sergeants, and in place of the peasants, privates.  Ultimately, the responsibility for creating the jobs goes back to the Commander-in-Chief, who decides what countries to invade, and so forth.  The details of carrying out those orders, where to build a base, where to attack, etcetera, are determined by the military hierarchy, and the orders are carried out somewhere close to the bottom of the pyramid.
  3. It makes jobs meaningful:  Armies tend to use “the carrot” during peacetime (“see the world!”  “get money for college!”  “gain valuable skills”) and “the stick” in more desperate times (enlist or go to jail, you coward!”) but beyond these more superficial motivators is something altogether deeper and more primal.  Summarized neatly by the U.S. Army’s longtime recruiting slogan “Be All That You Can Be,” War does indeed provide the challenges that push humanity to its highest heights, not only as individuals, but also collectively –at least in theory.For nations as well as at the level of each soldier, a major portion of the attraction of war is the concept of being tested to the absolute limits (and of course emerging victorious).  And in the big picture, war isn’t just about national interests and secure borders,  but about field-testing an entire ideology, an entire way of life and belief system.  That’s why nations meet on the field of battle –to find out “are we right, or are they right?”Islam vs. Christianity.  Capitalism vs. Communism.  Catholics vs. Protestants.  Fascism vs. Democracy.  Fight it out and may the best ideology win –and then spread.  That’s the unspoken promise of war.  After all, everyone loves a winner.  Why else would Germany and Japan have re-patterned their societies after the example of the United States after the conclusion of World War II?

NEXT WEEK:  The horrible downside of war.