English: own picture taken with own camera at Gandhi Museum Delhi5 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always”

MK Ghandi.

For investigators, the first 24 to 48 hours after an event such as this, are the most important. For the media they are the most frustrating.

For investigators, keeping an open mind is important, it is all too easy to leave stones unturned if you have guessed a stone turned has uncovered what you seek. And when seeking someone so deluded that they think killing and maiming, children and parents watching a sporting event, could in any way serve any cause, it is of paramount importance to leave NO stone unturned.

For the media, this means they have only the first line, or at best the first paragraph of the story. They have a fine line to tread, between reporting the event, the trauma, fear, courage and tragedy: and slipping into a goulish voyeurism. They must find a balance between, not knowing who the perpetrators are and responding to the general publics own speculations.

And in the mix is always the murky world of politics.

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/news/boston-marathon-bombing-conservatives-see-440479

Has some right-wing commentators already complaining of Liberal media bias.

Recently I saw or read dozens of US reports/blogs/opinion pieces, in which the British inclination to ridicule politicians even on the day they died was deplored, Bill O’Reilly springs to mind as an example.

Yet those same people are now happy to try to use the deaths, pain and anguish of people who did not choose the political limelight, to play political games: the phrase ‘double standard’ springs to mind.

From the reporting I have seen Bostonians seem determined not to let the bombs cowe them in any way, and to stand united.

Politicians could prehaps take note.

Margaret Thatcher (Photo credit: Loco Steve)

Inevitably after a fairly long time without blogging, the theme that has returned me to my keyboard is the death of Margaret Thatcher.

Now, up front I have to note that as a youngster in the late 70’s and early 1980’s not only did I vote for her, but as a member of my local conservative party I actively campaigned on her behalf. I was, as the saying goes a true believer. As was my father who aquired the nickname ‘maggies man’ where he worked, and as was my mother the daughter of a company director, and deputy head of a private school

I bought it all: the unions were destroying the country, people on benefits were scroungers, if someone worked hard they would be successfull, etc, etc.

But something changed for me, in about 1985.

It wasn’t a moment in history, or a policy advocated by the conservatives, I simply met someone who was well informed who argued with me.   Essentially I was challenged to ask questions. And slowly over a few months, my ardent support of Thatcher and her policies crumbled.

Factually, Thatcher did not cut the subsidies which were propping up the mining, steel and manufacturing industries, they were transfered to support banking and financial services, and communities based on the heavy industries left to fend for themselves. Thatchers government was spending if anything a little more on subsidies at the end of her career as government was at the beginning, except they were being paid to rich areas, rather than poor ones.

Factually, Thatcher fought and won the Falklands war, but also supported Pinochet, who had usurped a democratically elected president, and worse still funded and armed the Khmer Rouge in exile.

And all those years ago this is what convinced me Thatcher was not, and never had been worthy of my support, whatever her right hand appeared to be doing, often her left was doing the opposite.

If she had been a stage magician, she really would have cut her assistant in half, but convinced you she hadn’t, by parading an identical twin through the blood of the slain sibling.

I noticed a phrase I liked recently concerning the “inhabitants of Thatcherland”, which seemed to sum up those who continue to buy into her narrative. Touting phrases like “there was no other way”, “Thatcher saved Britain”, ect. Thatcherland, exists only in the minds of the followers, a magical world in which there is only ever one solution to a problem, only ever one opposing argument, where bad things “we do” can be ignored, and in all the intervening time nothing new has been learned.

The backwash of her death seems to have thrown up similar duplicity in todays conservatives. Some reporting noted, it had been agreed that parliament would not be recalled in the event of her death, yet Cameron did so.

Its worth asking, were the unions too strong before Thatcher? And they probably were, but the really odd thing is that Thatchers Policy and Legislation put in to deal with the problem, were almost identical to those proposed by the Labour party of the time.

A song by writers persecuted in the US for their Socialist views, Arlen and Harburg, almost made it to no 1 in the British Charts (The Scots and Welsh would have had it as no 1, only south east England prefered the forgettable track that actually made it.) Yet Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, was ‘banned with spin’ from radio 1’s chart show. Only a small section played with a ‘news report’ to ‘explain’ why it was in the chart. Following Newsnight on Saville, misreporting other abuse scandals, and the sycophantic reporting on Thatchers death, the BBC is unfortunately beginning to look more like a state broadcaster than it ever has.

The same thing seems to be happening with Thatchers Funeral: Its not a ‘state funeral’, but it is in central london, with full military honours, and a parade through the city. With her body lying ‘not in state’ in the palace of Westminster. A ‘State funeral with spin’.

Somehow this seems ironically appropriate, for the politician, who didn’t ban homosexuality, or ban plays about homosexuality, but stopped any public organisation, e.g. schools, councils ect, from saying or supporting anything which showed homosexuality in a positive way. A ‘ban with spin’.

The cry of those living in ‘Thatcherland’ has been that public displays despising Thatcher, are ‘disrespectful’. Yet in a time of austerity £10 million, ($16 million €12 million) spent on her funeral is more than the annual budget to tackle domestic violence in the UK, some would say that is disrespectful of people (particularly but not exclusively women) trapped in abusive relationships.

It has been in my mind for some time that the political right, seems to imagine that if they feel angry, or disgusted, or saddened by something, then everyone else should change what they think, say, feel and do to accommodate this. Comments typical of this mind set I have encountered, include the ‘ashamed to be British’ soundbite.

Well the reaction to Thatchers death, has not made me ashamed to be British, it has made me inordinantly proud to be British. When Reagan died, is was cringeworthy the way the US lauded him, even Tricky Dicky Nixon, got treated with kid gloves when he died. Which seems fundamentally hypocrytical to me.

The word ‘respect’ has been bandied about by the inhabitants of Thatcherland, as if holding a political office, or even just being a politician demands respect. There might be ordinary respect for persons, but beyond that respect has to be earned. And I reserve the right to withold my respect where I feel it has not been earned. Thatcher did not earn respect, she conned it out of people with slight of hand.

Anyone choosing to become a politician should not expect respect.

But of course if someone wants to respect a politician, they are free to do so, my personal choice is Tony Benn, purely on the basis that he tapes all contact with the media, and subsequently never gets misquoted.

I can’t help thinking that the real objection of the inhabitants of Thatcherland is that those expressing ‘disrespect’, won’t just go along with their favoured narrative. It was supposed to be all old news, the objectors long defeated, the battles all won, a heroine cast in bronse never to be torn down. They thought vainly that a period of mourning would let the story be told their way without objection, but the British decided this would be a lie.

What will happen at the funeral? Frankly I don’t know. I suspect ‘Ding Dong the witch is dead” will be chanted by some during periods of silence, some will turn their backs on the Hearse as it passes. Will it be dramatic, possibly possibly not. The Boston Marathon Bombs change things a little as peolles minds turn to that tragedy.

Does it matter? Probably not at this point, the other stories of ‘Thatchers reign’ are back in the mix, the division is out in the open not hidden by the eulogies of the establishment. The myth of ‘consensus’, the ‘spell’ is broken.

All in all, in the end, “Ding dong the witch is dead” turns out to be a wholey appropriate epitaph for Thatcher.

If I wouldn’t want to read it I’m sure not many other people would either.

But, now I think I might be able to come up with a few helpful things.

So as they say, ‘watch this space’

Louis Brandeis: Supreme Court Associate Justice 1916 - 1939

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.

Louis D. Brandeis

Image via Wikipedia

 He ached all over. It wasn’t just that his brain was writing cheques that his body couldn’t cash. It had gone beyond that. Now his feet were borrowing money that his legs hadn’t got, and his back muscles were looking for loose change under the sofa cushions.  

Terry pratchett: The Fifth Elephant.

British Intelligence, My Wife Loves it.

In March the BBC Sky News  and the rest reported on an odd incident. The most ‘sensationalist’ reporting was by News Corporation red top the sun, which  reported that a British diplomat  had been ‘captured’ in Libya by ‘rebel’ forces with a team of 7 SAS soldiers.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3450244/Brit-held-with-SAS-in-Libya-was-spy.html

The Sun Claimed:

“He and his SAS team were released last night, 72 hours after a secret mission to make contact with rebel leaders went badly wrong. Angry questions were being asked about alleged intelligence failures that forced them to surrender when surrounded and “suicidally outnumbered” by militia. Despite Government claims it sent a “small diplomatic team”, The Sun can reveal it was an MI6 secret agent and his special forces minders.”

The Sun claimed that the mission was ‘botched’

“Their phones and weapons were seized before delicate negotiations secured their release after 72 hours.”

The official UK Government line was

“A small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi. They experienced difficulties, which have been resolved.”

The story was of course reported by other papers, though the style was a little less sensationalist, and notably more cautious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8364937/Captured-SAS-unit-Libyan-rebels-release-special-forces-team.html

Today the BBC, Sky News and the Daily Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/24/libay-gaddafi-on-run-as-rebels-storm-his-tripoli-hq-115875-23367081/

among others are reporting that the Libyan rebels have received support from British Intelligence and Special Forces. The Mirror specifically claims:

“British foreign intelligence officers and ex-special forces are working round-the-clock to help rebels seize power.”

“Also helping are former SAS and paras in a “deniable” deal with the British government and paid via a route through an American-based company.”

“It has for the past 12 weeks been thrashing out a plan for the main final thrust into Tripoli but warned rebels: “Once you are in the capital the fighting will be bloody.” “

I confess I have not yet decided if the Sun and other news outlets had been ‘spun’ the original story by the intelligence services, or if they had ‘spun’ their own story and the intelligence services let them run with it.

But I would be surprised if I was the only one who heard, read or saw the story back in March and thought to myself, that for a ‘botched‘ mission it seemed remarkably effective, seized ‘phones’ (Not a satellite phone with a direct line to GCHQ by any chance?) are good for keeping in contact. A batch of ‘siezed’ top notch weapons, seems like a nice goodwill gesture, 72 hours is a nice period to do some serious negotiations. I also wondered about the uncertainty of the reporting, sometimes there were 7 at others 8 special forces involved.

A Special forces operative wouldn’t have been left behind to keep communication channels open would they? Surely Not.

It seems to me that establishing early contact with the ‘rebels’ was essential, doing it without some media attention was going to be next to impossible, a small team making contact ‘by any means necessary’, avoiding media attention if possible, but with a ‘back story’ if the media spotlight did fall, seems like a good strategy to me.

It all struck me as a little like an episode of Columbo, British Intelligence bumbling about looking disorganised, asking stupid questions, whilst all the time in a disciplined way, inexorably pursuing a specific objective.

On the current evidence I would say that if this was a ‘botched’ mission, they can keep botching them.

Grease and burnt crunchy bits.

Sham Harga had run a succesful eatery for many years by always smiling, never extending credit, and realizing that most of his customers wanted meals properly balanced between the four food groups: sugar, starch, grease, and burnt crunchy bits.

Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

K'ung fu tzu (Confucious)

PREAMBLE.

In a couple of posts on this blog I have commented that during the riots I noticed some outrageous comments, taking the ‘race angle’ on the riots. Since I had watched footage that gave the lie to this I said my piece in replies on a couple of web pages I encountered whilst tracking down other information, thinking that the posts would not survive the ‘editorial’, which is usually the case with the right wing and the anti-Islamist sites I have left comments on.

After posting I see the infamous, “Your comment is awaiting Moderation.” sign, and a day later it’s no-where to be seen.

Except on this occasion, where it was left in place, with the following somewhat barbed comment,  “I thought I would include Ms. Miller’s comments to illustrate the mindset of the opposition.” multiculturalism equals peace. Love is hate, up is down, etc”

Naturally there were several follow up comments and I responded and had a conversation with some racists. Which apart from putting me into a grumpy mood for several days, did at least show me where they were getting their self justifications from. In the replies, apart from the usual:  ‘Ug my brain urts, dem different from me, don’t like dem’  kind of replies, it became clear that the these self justifications were being drawn from a particular scientific perspective, that of Socio-biology.

Being the curious sort I did a bit of research, and as I read, and since the science of complexity and systems theory came up, a few ideas came to me, specifically about why the far-right are so awfully wrong about it all. So I wrote them down, sorry it’s a bit long but there you go. I have tried to break it up into sections to make it a little more digestible.

INTRODUCTION: POLITICS AND SCIENCE.

The Science of Socio-biology and related disciplines have become a battle ground, with regard to groups and a concept known as multi level selection. There is a great resistance among some to consider groups as distinct from and in competition with, each other, in the context of groups of Human beings. Historically this appears to derive from a moral repugnance of racial ideologies, with which there is a clear relationship.

For the most part this repugnance derives from the experience of the Holocaust, which as well as having a powerful impact on those who survived it, and those soldiers who relieved the camps, had an extreme, and for all practical purposes, unquantifiable effect on the perspective of politicians, religious leaders, historians and scientists particularly in Europe, but also around the world. This was to some extent amplified by the emergence of the civil rights movement, which provided further challenges to what remained of racist ideology in the 1960’s, and was further embedded as a social norm by the implementation of anti-discriminatory, and anti-oppressive values and practices throughout society. With today racist ideology of all kinds thankfully reduced, (in western democracies at least,) to nut job fringe movement status which almost no-one takes seriously.

Another point to add is that scientists, despite their avowed commitment to objectivity, are prone to defend pet theories which the evidence contradicts. It is my belief that this arises out of an unreasonable reliance on those aspects which are clearly objective, I.e. ‘A was observed,’ and a reluctance to consider that looking for A all too often misses the possibility that B, might have been a better thing to observe in the first place.

THE PROBLEM: THE SELFISH GENE AND ALTRUISM.

For evolutionary science, the  issue of how species differentiate, and how one sub-species survives, whilst another does not, are particularly significant themes. Linked to this there are issues about how groups interact with each other, in competition over resources. There are various arguments which centre on the activity of Dawkins, ‘selfish gene’.

 Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York City: Oxford University Press.

This is the idea that genes seek to perpetuate themselves over all other genes. So the selfish gene seeks to survive, to replicate itself, and to ensure the survival of its replicated copies, including variant mutations, and from this the strongest survive, and ultimately evolve, given enough opportunities to copy themselves. There is a problem evident in various animal species, however for the concept of the selfish gene: Altruism.

Intuitively altruism doesn’t sit well with the idea of the selfish gene, although interpretations have been formulated to reconcile them, usually centring on the theme of how co-operation, serves the selfish genes interests. Altruistic behaviour towards offspring is straightforward enough, as that perpetuates the genes survival, in the form of it‘s copies or descendants, but altruistic behaviour towards others with more distant relationships is problematic, as it is less clear how this perpetuates the genes survival.

Early theories suggested that Altruism radiated outwards, weakening as the relationship to the source became more distant. So that offspring would be favoured over siblings, and siblings over cousins, cousins over second cousins, tribe members over other tribes, one people over another people. Which has an attractive neat logic to it, except of course it is easy to recognise how this can become a justification for genocide, oppression, stereotyping or just plain exclusivity. As a result of this association, this idea fell out of favour.

In my mind I have tagged this concept ’concentric kinship altruism,’ I have no idea whatsoever what socio-biologists call it, although I am aware that there are a number of variants. This however is an inadequate explanation of altruism as it is expressed in the real world. Failing to explain why total strangers will act in utterly altruistic ways towards others they have no immediate genetic relationship to. Why would a parent adopt a child of a complete stranger, even if they had none of their own, based on this model, would they not nurture their siblings or cousins children instead? Why will millions of people in a time of austerity, give money to help people they have never met and likely will never meet in the horn of Africa? And characters like Mother Theresa are completely inexplicable to this model.

A brief look at the animal kingdom suggests that altruism has a close association with intelligence. By this I don’t mean intelligence as measured by intelligence tests: an aspect of psychological assessment, currently under intense scrutiny regarding their validity.  Rather the broader and significantly more demonstrable distinction between single celled organisms at one end of the spectrum, and humans at the other.

Dawkins model works well for single celled organisms, and in many ways continues to work well as organisms become more complex. However co-operation and mutual effort begins to take a hand as single celled organisms clump together to make more complex forms of life. Though strictly speaking not altruism, it suggests at least the seeds of altruism. The ‘Selfish Gene’ explanation of this is that through cooperation the gene increases it’s chances of survival and replication, and in a updated preface to his book Dawkins claimed that the phrase, ‘The selfish Gene’ could be substituted with, ‘The Co-operative gene’. Though for many readers applying this substitution to some passages of his book tends to stretch the imagination.

To cut a long argument short so to speak, higher animals show more altruistic behaviour, than lower animals. Bacteria show no noticeable altruistic behaviour. Worker ants sacrifice their individual opportunities to procreate in order to facilitate the procreation of their ‘parent gene’ via queens and drones. Dogs can be quite altruistic within their pack, even if it consists of humans. Apes seem particularly prone to altruistic behaviour, caring even for sick and old members of their troop, which from a selfish gene point of view are just a drain on resources. This suggests that altruistic behaviour has a purpose for groups. This theme is taken up by D.S. Wilson and his co-author E.O. Wilson (no relation)

THE RETURN OF THE GROUP.

D.S. Wilson and his co-author E.O. Wilson (no relation) have become well-known in circles interested in such things, for the quote, “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.” This quote appeared in their paper:

 D.S. Wilson and E.O. Wilson (2007) “Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology.” (The Quarterly Review of Biology > Vol. 82, No. 4, December 2007 )

Elsewhere in this paper they say:

“The fact that all evolutionary theories of social behavior (sic) must assume the existence of multiple groups (defined by particular traits and analyzed consistently by the logic of multilevel selection) is a major conceptual simplification that should be welcomed rather than resisted. “

As an aside this is a contradiction of their own earlier criticism of parsimony by others in the same piece, which they might have been better advised to avoid. It might however be questioned if it represents a simplification at all? Or if it represents a harmonisation with complexity theory and systems theory which they also make earlier reference to in the essay, and which might have some interesting implications.

More simply put the Two Wilson’s (No relation) are arguing that if single celled organisms co-operate in groups for the good of all the groups members in competition with other similar groups, and therefore evolve into multi celled organisms, in competition with other multi-celled organisms, and that socio-biologists apply this concept to groups formed by higher level organisms such as wildebeest for example, why then should humans be a special case?

Which is to be fair, a good question?

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS.

To quite a lot of people however, this is tantamount to reintroducing the concept of race, I.e. allowing the possibility of stereotyping groups of humans as having traits different from each other, and has drawn significant criticism. I am unclear if this criticism is deserved or not on the basis of the content of the cited paper? Perhaps I will find time to read some of their other work at a later date. The work of the Wilson’s (no relation) has also drawn the attention of far right political groups, who appear to see in it a renewed scientific justification for their ideology.

Unfortunately the Wilson’s (No Relation) have not made life easy for themselves by offering support to a somewhat more suspect character Professor Kevin MacDonald, who has come in for sever criticism for work arguing that  Judaism is a ‘survival strategy’, which has endowed undue influence on Jews. (also attracting the support of neo-fascists in the process) MacDonald himself, despite affirming the reality of the Holocaust, did himself no favours by giving evidence in support of Holocaust denier David Irving. The main criticism of MacDonald is that the ‘traits’ he uses to define Judaism, are tantamount to stereotyping.

It seems to me that these political overtones create a difficult set of tensions that are themselves complex and difficult to disentangle. The Wilsons (no relation) take refuge in ‘science’ and the evidence supporting their position for the most part.

The Wilson’s (No Relation) introduce the concept of the altruistic group, and it seems clear that altruism is a particularly key concept, creating with selfishness a pair of opposites Daoists would recognise instantly.

ALTRUISM

It seems appropriate to note here that I believe there is a distinction and an interaction between Genetic altruism and Psychological altruism. Broadly speaking Genetic altruism is instinctive, driven primarily by the inbuilt propensity to develop the parent-child attachment bond. As a child grows this attachment bond is generalised to others, good parental attachment, leads to good social relationships in adulthood. Psychological Altruism is essentially rational, the value of caring for and cooperating with others seen by the individual as a logical behaviour. Even though sometimes the logic might be tenuous and at times based on religious faith. Which doesn‘t invalidate the act of reasoning, only the foundations the reasoning is based on.

The main interaction between these features tends to rest on ‘good enough’ attachment between child and primary caregiver in the ‘critical phase’ of infancy, which allows management of anxiety to be sufficiently sophisticated to allow rational thought in the individual, particularly in the context of relationships.

I would argue that animals capable of more than simply responding to the impulses of ‘Breath, eat, drink, sleep and copulate, raise young, begin again’ use altruistic behaviour to construct alliances and loyalties between group members. As biological sophistication increases the level of altruistic behaviour also appears to increases. In apes this seems to have developed a high level of sophistication, e.g. ‘If I look after the old and sick, when I am old and sick I will be looked after.’ Intelligence, and particularly emotional intelligence would seem to be essential features of this. E.g. the child of the sick mother is grateful to the older carer for nurturing the mother in illness and offers care herself when the carer becomes ill. Which requires relatively sophisticated thinking skills concerning relationships.

There are many critics of the two Wilson’s (No relation) theory: one perspective I found most enlightening was the work of  Frans de Waal:

(2009) The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society, Harmony books, New York.

In which he describes strong evidence of altruistic behaviour within Chimpanzee and Bonobo troops. Frans de Waal is sceptical about multi-level selection and has said: reported here,

http://ericmjohnson.posterous.com/frans-de-waal-david-sloan-wilson-and-group-se#more

“I don’t believe much in group selection except as a variation on kin selection. Reason (many times given to DS Wilson) is that in all of the primates there is plenty of outflow of genes. Half the group migrates at puberty, either males or females. I have trouble seeing how group selection could work under such circumstances, so stick with individual selection and inclusive fitness most of the time.”

This suggests to me that where Wilson and Wilson (No Relation) argue for multiple levels, that their conception of this concerning group altruism operates well when related to species such as Eusocial insects. As it stands however it doesn’t translate well to the social interactions of apes or for that matter humans, and I would suspect other social animals with high intelligence such as Dolphins for instance. As I noted earlier, an objection to identifying humans as distinct or different from other animals is raised by the two Wilson’s (no relation) in their paper, as a reversion akin to old religious views that endowed humans with a soul as distinct from other animals.

However it occurred to me that if multilevel selection explains the behaviour of animals much less complex than humans, that it might be a fallacy to assume that the same level which applies to ants for instance applies in the same form to higher mammals, to apes and humans for example. Clearly the particular nature of the altruism expressed in ant colony’s is distinct from the co-operation evident between single cells in simple multi-celluar creatures. Rather it seems reasonable to consider that the idea of ‘multiple levels’ implies a hierarchy, in which different subtleties to the rules apply at different levels of complexity. I think I should add at this point that I believe that it is hard to overestimate the complexity of human relationships. If they were not so complex an end would have been put to war a long time ago.

In this model when apes appear to be operating altruistically at a next higher level than other animals, the rules for evolutionary progress are distinct from those operating at lower levels. Given this, we might conclude that Humans may well operate at a higher level still.  A complication however might be that any genetic propensity towards Altruism in Humans might be difficult to conclusively separate out from cognitive altruism.

I would argue this in this way: In the Ape troops studied by de Waal  the dispersal of genetic material via migration of youth from the home group represents a next level complexity in altruism, and may well have been replicated in human societies in a more sophisticated and at times it has to be said, less savoury way, through royal alliances based on marriage. I would argue this as follows: by dispersing into adjacent groups the departing youth are serving the interests of the species as a whole in ways which have a direct benefit on the home group. The departure not only prevents genetic inbreeding, but also establishes kinship relationships between the home group and the surrounding groups, and with those relationships a diverse set of other relationships, which create and maintain interdependence and extended loyalties, between groups. This offers a high level survival strategy which helps manage conflict when it emerges between groups, over  resources.

In their argument the two Wilson’s (no relation) introduce the concepts of complexity theory, and systems theory. This raises two factors: First no system is truly a closed system, with real life systems lying alongside, overlapping and nesting inside each other: The Wilson’s (No relation) model is argued to be complex, and as such the system can be regarded as operating on the edge of chaos. Second, as a complex system we might also conclude that altruism/selfishness might well function as a strange attractor in human relationships, possibly specifically the Lorenzo attractor, creating a pattern replication, with variance, at each subsequent level of increased complexity. The pattern variance might well be seen as modulated by the relative significance of altruism and selfishness at any given level of the model.

From a socio-biology perspective as things become more complex, how altruism is expressed in order to manage conflict changes, in ways which sometimes appear at odds with how it was expressed further down the scale of complexity. At a relatively low level of complexity ants function almost as if they were a dispersed body, altruism is expressed by members of the colony working for the colony, contact with other colonies is either avoidance or outright war, except for the exchange of genetic material, e.g. queens and drones, and no kinship ties appear to be established. At a much higher level of complexity, in apes contact with other troops, may at times be wary, but altruism is expressed through the establishment of kinship ties associated with the sharing of genetic material, but also through other relationships, such as friendships. In chimpanzees, individuals leave groups and join other groups for a time, or permanently.

Ok so I know that’s a couple of seriously wordy paragraphs, but then I am talking about complexity and chaos so what do you expect.

If kinship ties break down, altruism between groups can also break down this can be viewed as turbulence in the system, such turbulence if left unchecked can lead to a runaway reaction, e.g. war, (Which Chimpanzees are also occasionally prone to as well as humans, and interestingly Ant‘s and other Eusocial insects.) Provided turbulence is managed adequately through a self check mechanism e.g. kinship ties, loyalties and  even democracy,  macro level species wide altruism would seem to be a potentially normal high order survival strategy for groups functioning at high levels of socio-biological complexity. A further order of complexity might even extended this into planetary wide altruism which could be seen as a high order survival strategy, serving the interests of individual, group, species, and eco-system simultaneously. As I have thought about this I have wondered if it matters if a distinction between innate and cognitive altruism matters one jot the logic of survival this offers.

Therefore it is entirely reasonable to argue that because cognitive sophistication in apes and subsequently humans, (and possibly dolphins and whales) is significantly greater than other species, that altruism is functioning as a ‘peacemaker’, seeking to manage the turbulence created by conflict over resources, to enable advantage to all, at a species level, at a minimum in a local environment. This offers up the possibility of considering, that when turbulence is not too great that humans co-exist quite nicely, with relatively porous group boundaries, and it is only when those boundaries become too defined that ‘war’ breaks out. Or put another way peaceful co-existence, interaction and extended relationship ties across groups, is the innate ‘natural state’ for humans.

There are those who would argue that conflict between groups simply arises over resources, and it cannot be denied that in some instances this is true, however in the context of altruism as a function of multilevel selection operating at it‘s highest level, it could also be argued that war represent’s a breakdown in the development or maintenance of kinship ties, loyalties, the alliances and the perception of shared advantage, between groups . In this context issues such as multiculturalism function in exactly the same way as kinship ties, except elevated to a higher level, operating between very large groups. Extended interdependent relationships built on mutual advantage, dispersed loyalties and strengthened alliances between very large groups, elevates diplomacy and multi-culturalism from political concepts to genetically inbuilt, cognitively enhanced very high level survival strategies.

CONCLUSION.

If we are to accept the two Wilson’s (no relation) Argument that altruistic groups out perform non-altruistic groups, then offering this possibility of additional levels we might conclude that altruistic species, e.g. Chimps outperform non-altruistic species, in local contexts. If the altruism of chimps is seen as symbolic of the progenitor of Human success, e.g. the Ramapithecus common ancestor, then it is the human capacity (not necessarily always expressed as well as it might) for species wide altruistic behaviour in local contexts, which has promoted humans to become the most wildly successful species the planet has ever seen. Perhaps it was this species wide altruism that allowed us to outperform Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, without the serious interspecies conflict most archaeologists appear to agree never occurred.

With the advent of globalism, such species wide altruism in local settings, expands by at least an order of magnitude, creating a scenario where multicultural exchange and integration are a next level manifestation of the altruistic behaviour evident at lower levels of complexity, extended into the context of the very large group. This is completely at odds with the interpretation of multi-level selection projected onto such theoretical work by the far right. Rather it suggests that the implosion of Nazi Germany with a unified world turning against it was precipitated by the innate inter-group altruistic response of other groups observing the tragedy unfold.. As was the moral revulsion and antipathy towards racist ideology, of those groups through the 1960’s to the present day. In this context ideas that multi-level group selection imply isolationism as a ‘survival strategy’ are fundamentally flawed, and unsupported by the anthropological evidence.

Interestingly the human species also seems capable of not just species wide altruistic endeavour, but also cross species altruism. At one level this is evident in our co-existence with Wolves (ultimately dogs), cats,  horses, various birds, which whilst they can be seen as ‘tools’ of  humans rarely occupy such a simplistic role for the humans involved. If you doubt this watch a shepherd with his dog, it isn’t just a working relationship, particularly with the best pairings involving dynamics such as friendship and genuine love on both sides. This implies that concern for other species and the environment is yet another extension of the innate capacity of humans to work altruistically.

Using this model ultimately multilevel selection grounded in systems and complexity theory, can be applied to understanding the psycho-biological advantages of altruism, in terms of extended  and very large groups, including entire species, valuing diversity, encouraging multi-culturalism and ultimately even the maintenance of ecosystems. As such the work of the Wilson’s (no relation) can be argued to lead towards a theory of altruism in very large groups, that underlines the value of multiculturalism and environmentalism as very high level survival traits, within a theoretical framework that harmonises with not only systems theory and complexity theory, but also complex systems theory.

As such it seems to me that multi-level selection should not cause anxiety to the vast majority of us who abhor and oppose fascist racist ideology, rather we should welcome it as a further scientific refutation of the validity of racism, which would help further marginalise those who seek to subvert science in order to cling to a lost world of bias and privilege.

Image via Wikipedia

I have been a bit busy today, running round after the kids, cooking tea and such,  and I haven’t had a proper chance to watch the news, just catching snippets in passing. I will probably have a sit down to watch after writing this, when the kids have finished their TV Progs. One snippet I just heard however seemed to me to exemplify a particularly irritating double standard. A commentator was decrying the divisions and disagreements between the Libyan ’Rebels’, and saying that they, ‘need to get their ideological house in order.’

This made me think that there are some people who have an odd idea about democracy. I suspect that these same people would be complaining bitterly if the Libyan ‘rebels’ were all of a single mind, unless of course they agreed completely with the commentators own particular political perspective.

The fact that they disagree, but have still managed to hold half of Libya together as a political unit in very difficult circumstances, suggests that there is good enough agreement where it matters for the time being.

A lot of commentators are putting a lot of emphasis on the death of General Younis, but apparently missing the idea that otherwise the ‘rebel’ held portion of Libya has run remarkable smoothly. And there is a question mark about how Younis’s, strategic and tactical planning seemed to be limiting the ‘Rebels’ progress, which improved remarkably after his death. And I suspect that the argument in the ‘rebel’ ranks that led to his death was related strongly to this.

It doesn’t excuse Murder of course, but then I wonder how many revolutions have lacked a few loose cannons.

Behind all this seems to be the spectre of supposed Islamic Fundamentalists, who are now going to rush in and take over and turn Libya into a second Iran. Except that despite attempts by the Gadaffi regime to imply the rebels are all ‘Al Qaida’ there has been remarkably little evidence to support this.

It does seem that the various nay sayers don’t understand what democracy is, and it does seem to be democracy that has bound the Libyan Rebels together. There will be a broad range of political opinions among them, the online provisional constitution, is not terrible, let them at least organise an election before we get too anxious about what the political framework is.

Image by Crethi Plethi via Flickr

Democracy is a frightening thing. In a democratic state, politics and society as a whole is something akin to a leaf on the wind. Politicians in Democratic states invest a huge amount of energy into establishing mechanisms to ensure a degree of control is possible, simply because the entire purpose of Democracy is to limit that control. Hence they cultivate the attention of those self appointed arbiters of right and wrong the media.

After living under democracy for some time it is easy to forget just how scary it is, for all we can always find someone to blame when things don‘t work quite right, the government, bankers, Judges, Police opposing view points, politicians, in the end the people are making the big choices, every 5, or 4, or 7, or however many years the particular democracy has decided on.

Because through the democratic process we delegate the authority of the people, to elected politicians, who we have decided we trust, or distrust least to run things, we are able to get on with the important business of creating, playing, raising families ect. Doing so safe in the knowledge that if something goes wrong, that there are rules, regulations, policies, and strategies that stand a reasonable chance of identifying who was supposed to be responsible for things running smoothly, holding them accountable and identifying someone to take over if they failed in that responsibility.

Even if the ultimate responsibility lies with us, the people.

Dictatorships, and Oligarchies, however do have one advantage over Democracies, at least in the short to medium term, they allow direct control of the apparatus of government. For the governing, this creates a short to medium term predictability about how to make things happen in the way the ruling class desire or like, for the governed it absolves them of responsibility, anything and everything that goes wrong (Or for that matter right) is the fault of the government, precisely because of the mechanisms of control they have established.

In many ways a revolution is an act of taking responsibility. For those involved it is a direct and personal responsibility for building the kind of society they want to live in. For those outside, looking in, a revolution it is a frightening time, there is so much chaos, which way will the wheel of fortune turn? Will the fear of the chaos create a new dictator, or Oligarchy to restore order and establish control? Or out of the chaos will new democratic systems emerge, ensuring the power of the people is enshrined in law, and protected from those who would usurp it?

In Libya it seems highly likely that an end game is approaching, (I’m about four paragraphs on from this as I add this note and the end certainly looks as if it’s already here.) and if things there seemed confusing up to now, they are almost certainly going to get a whole lot worse. But at least the really dangerous shooting war will be over, for the time being at least.

Gadaffi, has various options about how to respond to his contracting circle of influence. He can tough it out to the end, as he has implied he will do. He can fold, and throw himself on the mercy of the revolutionaries and hope for the best. He can make a tactical retreat from systemic power and attempt to re-assert himself through a guerrilla war, in the coming months, making the new governments life as difficult as possible in the hope that as things don’t get better as fast as the public wants they will become nostalgic for his rule and demand/support his return. Or he might just simply cut and run.

I suspect he will opt for a guerrilla war, the success of which will depend to a great extent on how his support holds up as the revolutionaries establish control in Tripoli. If his support implodes, as I suspect might be likely, it is likely to be a short terrorist campaign, ending with his own capture or death. If his support in Libya shows any resilience in the face of defeat, then there could be a very nasty guerrilla war lasting for years. As I write there are various reports suggesting that at least two and possibly three of Gadaffi’s sons have been taken into custody by the Revolutionaries entering Tripoli, which suggests that Gadaffi’s support is indeed disintegrating.

Then of course the real confusion will start, there are many western voices that are clearly anxious that the wrong kind of people will be voted in to power under a democratic system. There are of course different factions among the revolutionary forces, a conservative wing, a liberal wing, and a number of tribal based groups.  The anxious western voices seem to imagine that the conservative wing of the popular uprising, will institute a Islamic state identical to Iran, and no one else will get a look in.

The problem of course is that these western voices will imagine they have some kind of say, because NATO air support was without a doubt crucial in the development of the campaign. This is a big problem, and frankly the west should enforce the no-fly zone until it is clear that whatever remnants of Gadaffi’s army has been rendered ineffectual, and then ground It’s planes and keep it’s collective mouth shut.

The arguments for western involvement were Moral, the emphasis in UN Security council resolution 1973 was on a moral objective. There was a sense when the resolution was passed that this was because we could not stand idly by. To imagine that acting according to our conscience then, gives us any say now, in how the Libyan’s now organise their country is a fallacy. If the Libyans ask for help and advice, then it should be available, otherwise we should keep our noses out.

Western democracies are quick to promote the idea of Democracy around the world, but forget that we have been travelling the road to democracy for at least a couple of hundred years, we are certainly a lot better at it now than when we started, but we still have lessons to learn. I hope the Libyans will look at our example, and question those things the west got wrong at least to begin with. The immediate aftermath of the French revolution was not a pretty sight. The treatment of minorities in the fledgling United states left a lot to be desired. The British struggle to define it’s self as a democracy without a clearly defined constitution.

I hope as well they will learn from the other great revolutions, the difficulty of power struggles in a new state experienced by the Russians first time around. The dangers of a return to authoritarian style leadership, such as happened in China. The lessons of transitioning too quickly from one mode of government to another as happened in Russia second time around.

Mostly however I hope that they can bring an objective eye to the struggles of the Iranian People. I hope they will recognise the widespread discontent that exists in Iran, and consider that the noble experiment in religiously informed Democracy has not worked out as well as would have been hoped by many of those who were involved in the original Iranian Revolution.

I am not one of those that believes religion and politics should be kept separate. In truth I think to imagine such a thing to be possible demonstrates a lack of understanding of what either is. Politics and religion overlap and intertwine. In Britain there is technically a state religion, one political party harks back to an idea of religious values which probably never existed in the first place, Another was built almost in equal measures by atheistic socialists, and devout Methodists.  There are articles of faith in political perspectives just as strongly held as in any religion.

The west needs to have faith in Democracy, believe that the power of Democracy is to limit the excesses of any particular view, and to empower those who would be marginalised under other systems. If the Libyans don’t get it right this time around, then they will have tried, and hopefully learned. If they do get it right, it might well not look quite like what we in the west imagine a democracy to be, and we might end up learning something about our own forms of government in the process. The last thing we should do is imagine that Libyan Democracy will look like western Democracy overnight, if at all.

M.K. Ghandi once reportedly said that ‘there is not a nation on earth that would not prefer it’s own bad government, to the good government of a foreign power.” I would paraphrase this a little and say, “there is no nation on earth that would not rather work out what Democracy is for themselves, than have foreign powers dictate to them what their Democracy should be like.”

The Libyan revolutionaries are excited at the moment, it seems very likely that they have won what was essentially a civil war, so they have a right to be. Excitement without fear is merely anticipation, freedom is frightening, both to those attaining it for the first time and to those watching others attain it for the first time. I wish the Libyans luck in their fearful anticipation, the problems can be worked out, different views can be accommodated, and  despite it all, freedom is worth all the struggles that will be encountered.

Image via Wikipedia

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history – with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.

Mitch Ratcliffe

Never Invite Medusa to a Toga Party.

I can’t deny I am out of sorts at the moment, and I have concluded that I would have made a lousy Journalist. Of late there seem to have been a lot of very bleak news stories: Breivik, the Riots, Murders in Jersey, and today the death of an RAF pilot in a Hawk Jet of the Red Arrows, to name a few. Since a lot of what I write on this blog relates to news stories, all of these have caught my attention.

My first three examples have really tested my generally positive view of human nature. The riots in particular since the sweeping generalisations of some, set me to thinking about Racism, and I have been doing some research for a longer piece on that subject. As an aside to that, since in essence I was pursuing a ‘story’ of sorts, I began wondering how Journalists cope. For all the four stories I mention above are bleak, there is a Civil War in Libya, which not that long ago was the top headline news. There is of course the Famine in the Horn of Africa which fills me with despair and feelings of helplessness in equal measure. The Democracy protests, and associated violence in Syria. The world Economy slipping into meltdown. And a big chunk of Japan got washed away by the sea, and now glows in the dark.

How Journalists manage to report on any one of these stories day after day, without slipping into terminal depression, never mind managing to hold onto any sense of objectivity boggles the mind.

The Red Arrows story seems the most difficult for me to get my head around right now, since as a family we go down to Weymouth, on the third Wednesday in August and watch the Air display there, and somehow, even if they were to display in three days time, which seems unlikely, it is now both anxiety provoking and more than tinged with sadness. Which has put the dampers on the end to an already soggy summer.

I can’t claim that the news of late has been particularly bad, there always seems to be something going on which is morbid or hopelessly miserable, so the only thing I can really relate my generally dour feelings to is thinking too much about miserable topics.

My mood wasn’t made any lighter, when a respondent to a previous post thought Ken Livingstone and myself using Hitler as an object of ridicule and by implication, (in this persons mind) his crimes, was outrageous. As I argued in an earlier piece humour is in many ways a defence against being overwhelmed by difficult feelings, and a way of getting even. So I suspect that Journalists cope like anyone else in a stressful and challenging profession, with black humour.

 So taking advice from Dydactylos the philosopher in Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods whose,  “philosophy was a mixture of three famous schools — the Cynics, the Stoics and the Epicureans — and summed up all three of them in his famous phrase, ‘You can’t trust any bugger further than you can throw him, and there’s nothing you can do about it, so let’s have a drink.’ ”

So:  Cheers!

And here’s some black humour, so we can all feel superior to the rioters.

—–

A man was sentenced today for looting a DFS store during the London Riots, he was given five years to pay the fine and starts his sentence June 2013.

—–

Q: How many rioters does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Three.

One to smash the bulb.

One to smash the shop window, to get a new bulb.

A third to hold back the 500 Metropolitan police in riot gear.

—–

At least one musical instrument store was burgled during the riots,
Apparently, it was an orchestrated crime.

Several violins were stolen
Police believe members of the gang were on the fiddle.

However the owner expressed relief that his period instruments were untouched, saying, “they left the lute.”

—–

A flaw was identified in a leading brand of laptops today, after branches of Comet were besieged by a number of people returning the product and demanding their Bricks back.

TRC

Image by randomcuriosity via Flickr

“Sometimes I… well… I just write stuff which hasn’t been pinched from ANYONE (shuffles feet, looks embarrassed…).”

Terry Pratchett. At a book signing.

Ken Impersonates Ghandi.

BBC News – Ken Livingstone ‘compares Boris Johnson to Hitler’.

Croydon Tory MP Gavin Barwell seems to be in the forefront of trying to make sure that the story is Ken Livingstone losing it, when from what I can tell the whole thing was Ken being Ken. (He’s not due to turn up on Have I got News For You, soon is he?)

Politicians seriously struggle to develop senses of humour, London seems to be unique in this regard, since its main candidates last time around and in all probability next are part time comedy show stars in their own right.

Seriously Would Boris Johnson have beat Ken to the Mayors Job without appearing on HIGNFY.

Which other Nations Capital can claim that the most important electoral broadcasts of the Mayoral campaign, will be the candidates appearances on a comedy show.