By all accounts, the folks behind the Kony 2012 campaign have succeeded in placing the aforementioned butcher in the bowels of infamy. Many are touting this as a victory in the “age of social media.”
Kony was recently branded on the recent cover of Time Magazine and one Facebook friend took the opportunity to proclaim, “[g]et used to this system, it’s how the Millennials generation is going to continuously change the world.”
Maybe so, but how much are you willing to wager that Kony isn’t still roaming the jungles of Uganda in six months? I wouldn’t take those odds either.
The ease with which social media allows committed individuals to inform the masses is a welcome development, but I fear the onslaught of social media renders everything as white noise.
The western world is one is which more people are “aware” of more problems in the developing world than in any previous point in history. We have awareness for everything, yet it seems very little advancement has come in the way of actually tackling the problems we’re so aware of.
We’re “empowered” in the sense we can immerse ourselves in a stream of consciousness via Twitter and Facebook and take part in the dialogue. But to what end? What exactly is the solution to a problem like Kony? Is re-tweeting #KONY2012 for the thirty-seventh time so that your coworker, who only watches American’s Top Chef, finally catches up to speed and also joins in the re-tweeting activism really going to bring us any closer to bringing him to justice?
The biggest disconnect lies in the very people who so passionately want to see Kony brought to justice. Many of these same folks also buy into the pretense of social justice, which in its political manifestation is bankrupting America and much of the western world. According to the Congressional Budget Office, based on current projections debt as a percentage of GDP will eclipse 100% around 2027, at which point the US economy grinds to a halt.
The year 2027 isn’t an abstract, far-away point in time; that is in fifteen years. Most of today’s college students will still be paying on their student loans as the American economy descends in Armageddon.
A world that still has real, physical borders with violent men on the other side requires armies that are capable of dealing with these issues. An America sliding into an economic abyss will be unable to field teams of soldiers capable of bringing down the Konys of the world.
If those of us in the West don’t begin to rethink the direction of our government, it won’t matter how much awareness can be generated through social media. In a diminished America, we will gather by the thousands to stare and scream through the storefront windows while those on the other side commit unspeakable acts with impunity.
The narratives generated through social media only mean something if there are tangible consequences to back them up. I’m afraid that we’re so taken with our ability to create national conversations as manifested in a sleek “trending topic” that we’re neglecting to even consider the second half of the equation.
The narrative of the past few decades, really since the oil shocks of the 1970s, has been that of a desire to move past fossil fuels and onto newer, cleaner sources of energy. We’re all aware of the arguments for such a move so I won’t discuss those here.
We know that government has made efforts, serious or not, to encourage the development of new technologies. A myriad of subsidies and tax credits exist for just about any new technology out there.
My own feelings on the subject are that fossil fuels, through their relative abundance and energy density, still provide value that simply cannot be matched in the marketplace. In a price competitive market, emerging energies are simply not in a position to be competitive. I also take the position that fossil fuels will predominate in the coming decades because it will take much longer for newer sources of energy to compete. I think we are much farther away from a fossil fuel free society than we think.
However, over the weekend I had the opportunity to hear Peter Thiel speak. Thiel is the Silicon Valley tycoon who founded PayPal and was one of the first to invest in Facebook. Thiel, as evidenced by his estimated fortune of $1.5 billion, is a forward-thinking man but he has taken an increasingly dim view of future. He spent the majority of his fifteen presentation describing his view that innovation, the sort of large-scale, society-changing innovation of the past, has basically stagnated since the oil shocks of the 1970s. In a piece for National Review, Thiel wrote the following:
“When tracked against the admittedly lofty hopes of the 1950s and 1960s, technological progress has fallen short in many domains. Consider the most literal instance of non-acceleration: We are no longer moving faster. The centuries-long acceleration of travel speeds — from ever-faster sailing ships in the 16th through 18th centuries, to the advent of ever-faster railroads in the 19th century, and ever-faster cars and airplanes in the 20th century — reversed with the decommissioning of the Concorde in 2003, to say nothing of the nightmarish delays caused by strikingly low-tech post-9/11 airport-security systems. Today’s advocates of space jets, lunar vacations, and the manned exploration of the solar system appear to hail from another planet. A faded 1964 Popular Science cover story — “Who’ll Fly You at 2,000 m.p.h.?” — barely recalls the dreams of a bygone age.”
There are certainly arguments to be made in disagreement with Thiel, but it does open up the possibility, at least in my mind, that maybe we should have been a post-fossil fuel society by now. As society we like to think we’re always on the cutting edge with exciting breakthrough technologies, but who’s to say that is actually true?
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Thiel is correct in saying innovation has slowed drastically in the energy and transportation sector. The logical question is then “why?” Because this is only intended as a thought experiment I won’t pretend these are empirical answers, but merely hypotheses.
First, is it possible that we as a society are looking at all the wrong ideas? We look to government as the source of funding for new innovations, but government works by earmarking funds specifically designated for certain ideas. How can government, or rather the politicians within government, possess any inclination towards what has potential or not? In his speech on Saturday, Thiel made the point that government is overwhelmingly staffed by lawyers, who have little to no background in science. If government is to be a source of technological innovation, the deficit of scientists in politics is a serious impediment.
Second, does government actually warp the incentives of innovators? Thiel spoke of a failure of imagination among society at all levels. He has concluded that too many scientists and investors are content to go after the “low-hanging fruit.” It’s my contention that this is the unintended consequence of government funding specific projects. When politicians are willing to hand out billion dollar grants to clean-tech startups, in effect these innovators have already made their money. The conditions attached to these grants sets expectations too low, in my opinion. Energy startups need to be subject to the cutthroat demands of the market. It also needs to be pointed out that every scientist who works under the auspices of a government grant is one less scientist available to work for a more ambitious, more demanding company in the private sector. Again, it’s the law of unintended consequences at play.
Lastly, I think society at all levels suffers to a large extent from a regulatory bottleneck. Reading about the mishmash of federal, state, and local regulation involved in building electrical infrastructure should give one a good idea of how slow society moves when regulated. In contrast, computers and the Internet have thus far largely escaped significant regulation and they are dynamic industries.
In closing, maybe Thiel is correct in saying that society is suffering from a lack of imagination. I’m a firm believe in the credo of letting markets work, but our issues probably extend far past simply letting markets work as currently configured. If we are to get back to the day of rapidly occurring innovation in all sectors of the economy, it will require an undoing of the bureaucratic sclerosis we find ourselves mired in and elimination of the perverse incentives we throw at scientists and innovators.
Not once in my 43 years have I thought that I’d see an Arab leader toppled by his people. It is nothing short of poetic justice that it was neither Islamists nor invasion-in-the-name-of-democracy that sent the waters rushing onto Ben Ali’s ship but, rather, the youth of his country.
In case you missed it, an Arab country in Africa has just overthrown its dictator. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook have been credited with aiding the people in their attempt to overthrow the government.
Goosebumps all over. I can’t believe I lived through an Arab revolution!! Thank you, Tunisia!” tweeted Gigi Ibrahim, a young Egyptian woman whose handle is Gsquare86. “The power of the masses is capable of toppling any dictatorship. Today was Tunisia. Tomorrow is Egypt, Jordan. LONG LIVE REVOLUTION!
Anytime a dictator falls it provides reason to rejoice. What I find interesting is that social media is actually enabling people to BELIEVE that they have the power to overthrow their tyrannical governments. It’s one thing to be capable, it’s quite another to realize and believe that you are indeed capable of overthrow. For all its downsides, social media is about empowering individuals and any freedom loving person should be rejoicing about the developments in Tunisia.
Abraham Lincoln
A commenter over at Transterrestial Musings wrote the following:
To the private sector a half a billion dollars is enough to start a whole new industry. To the federal government it is a rounding error. How many new industries will be lost due to a wasteful spending of a totally dysfunctional federal government?
Unfortunately the answer to that question is probably many, considering the government now spends around $4 Trillion. That is 8,000 half a billions if you were wondering.
H/T Instapundit
“They will find a way, governments loathe people being free.”
I recently saw Pirate Radio and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s an entertaining movie, but more than that it is perfect caricature of big brother government. In the movie, the British government controls the airwaves, not allowing rock & roll to be broadcast over the airwaves of the BBC. Because rock & roll had become hugely popular but BBC stations refused to play it, “pirate radio” ships set to sea to broadcast the music. A classic case of individuals responding to the needs of a market; in order words: free market capitalism.
The powers at be in the British government are offended at these rogue radio stations and believe them to be reducing the morals of the nation. Where have we heard this justification before? (Think Fairness Doctrine). Throughout the movie, the official that governs the airwaves seeks to find ways to shut down these pirate radio stations. At one point in the movie he utters this line, “that’s the whole point of being the government, if you don’t like something you simply make up a law that makes it illegal.” His office finally succeeds in drafting the “sea offences” law, which bans radio broadcasts at sea because they can interfere with distress calls from sinking ships. The law effectively bars pirate radio.
Most people who see this movie will walk away thinking “it’s really ridiculous that the British government would shut down something that most everyone liked”, which is the natural and correct reaction. However, most will fail to draw any parallels to almost everything else government does. Why should government be able to ban incandescent light bulbs, or mandate fairness on the airwaves from privately owned radio stations? Government acts as big brother everyday of our lives, in almost every manner, yet most people hardly notice.
Government should not be the arbiter of what can be offered to the public, let the market decide. If people want to listen to rock & roll, conservative talk radio, or use incandescent light bulbs then let them. I don’t believe in promoting lawlessness, but I love the characters in this movie that stand up and defy big brother government. More people need to rebel against government when it acts like a bully. I say liberty for all!
You can watch the trailer here.
John Mayer
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the whole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it proves for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus, it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy In America
“I never think I am successful,” he says. “If I am successful, then I should be retired. If I am not retired, then that means I should still be working hard, keeping the company running.”
That would be Terry Gou, founder of Foxxcon, the empire that manufactures electronics for everyone, including the Apple’s iPhone. His quote above is illuminating when you read he is worth an estimated $5.9 billion. Gou is a self-made man who started with a $7,500 loan from his mother, took risks, made the right decisions, and worked extremely hard every step of the way. I’m fascinated by people like Gou; he has all the money in the world but he doesn’t care:
“I am not interested in knowing how much I have. I don’t care. I am working not for money at this moment, I am working for society, I am working for my employees.”
At 59 he remains hungry and driven, I hope I’m the same way.
The whole thing can be found here.
