Ray Woodcock’s Current Thoughts

I search in Google.  I get a list of a million webpages.  I refine my search.  Ultimately, I’m down to a few thousand.  Problem:  too many of the results are junk.  Example:  they seem to be automatically generated in response to my search.  I get pages reflecting all of my search terms but having no meaningful content.

I want a Firefox add-on, or some other tool, that will help me eliminate stuff I don’t want.  This means several things.  First, I want to be able to use this tool to enter my Google searches.  I want it to save elements of previous searches (e.g., in Google search syntax, “-dogs” (i.e., the word with a minus in front of it) means “exclude webpages containing references to dogs”; maybe I never want to see pages about dogs) so I can enter them quickly.  I want that because sometimes I have to type the same search terms at length, and it gets tiring and slow.   So then this tool becomes my repository of all the different variations I have used on Google searches.  In this tool, besides storing elements of searches (e.g., -dogs), I can save whole searches, and can mix and match them with one another.

Second, I want this tool to let me store and add to lists of preferred or unwanted websites.  The CustomizeGoogle add-on allows me to enter a list of unwanted sites manually, but I want to do it by clicking next to the unwanted item as it appears on the actual Google search results page.  Ideally, the tool would ask me to select the portion of the text, contained in the brief Google search description of the website, that persuaded me to exclude this website, and the tool would then de-prioritize other search results containing that term.

Finally, I want this tool to draw upon a database of other Google searchers’ decisions.  For any search, people will vary on what they find interesting or relevant.  But when a sufficiently high percentage of people seems to agree that a certain website is just not what they wanted, then I don’t want to have to manually exclude or de-prioritize that website; I want the tool to do it automatically.

Society invests a fortune in the training of doctors, Ph.Ds, and other sorts of specialists and experts.  Then society requires these people to spend hundreds of hours of their time, each year, dealing with trivial stuff that could be done just as well, if not better, by others.

Example:  filling out forms.  There are rental or mortgage application forms, grant application forms, credit check forms … there is really no end to the number of forms that a person can fill out in a year.  There are times when the trained specialist does need to deal with those forms personally.  But there are many other times when s/he does not.  It would be in society’s interest to make it easy for the specialist to hand off this sort of task to someone — a paralegal, say — who does like to deal with forms, or who is making a business out of it — someone who has not invested years in becoming a lawyer or CPA, and who therefore is not too busy or expensive for the job.

Another example:  commuting.  Society can force the trained specialist to sit in traffic, just like everyone else.  If the specialist were responsible for the forms, the traffic jams, and the other wastes of time that make him/her less productive, then it might be just as well that s/he does have to sit in traffic:  it may remind him/her to do something about the problem.  But for the most part, the highly trained specialist who is spending hours filling out forms, or sitting in traffic, does not have any training or influence in that sort of problem.  The people who create forms and traffic tend to be rich people and politicians.  Many times, those people can afford limo drivers, helicopters, or other ways to avoid the delay.  That’s a world apart from the anthropologist or biomedical researcher whose precious ability to contribute to society is just being dribbled away.

If anthropologists qualified for a special seat on the train, a special diamond lane on the freeway, or other perquisites designed to make the best use of their time, young people might have a different impression of the value of becoming a highly educated specialist.  When the only people who can afford those sorts of perquisites are bankers and politicians, then naturally those are the directions in which young people’s ambitions turn.

By 2100, I hope, society will have recognized that it is dreadfully wasteful to train specialists, and then make it difficult for them to make the kind of contribution to society that they would like to make.

It is important to give everyone a chance to be heard, to provide input into how s/he is governed.  Good government cannot ensue, however, when the person providing that input lacks time or knowledge to understand the issues on which s/he would opine.

That principle applies at all levels.  Some may consider it most applicable at the grassroots level, where people sometimes express strong opinions on matters they do not comprehend.  Others may consider it more applicable at the level of journalism, advertising, and other broadcasting, where the power to influence opinion can easily exceed the degree of responsibility with which one exercises that power.

Still others may consider the principle most importantly applicable within the halls of government, where the pressures of time are such that judges and juries do not understand the cases they are deciding and legislators vote on bills they have not even read, much less explored.  The principle may even be considered to apply, broadly, to any instance in which executive power is vested in one person, in public and private sectors alike, when those powers result in ill-informed, corrupt, or otherwise unjustifiable decisionmaking capable of causing great pain or damage.

It is possible to research the extent to which people understand the important issues on which they are voting or acting.  When people cannot or will not acquire competence in those issues, good government and the health of society call for devolution, power-sharing, or other temporary or permanent reassignment of decisional power to those who can and do demonstrate mastery of the issues.

Fundamentally, the principle recommended here is that it is better for the right decision to be made by the wrong people, than for the wrong decision to be made by the right people.  That is not an infallible principle; there are times when it will be incorrect.  Reassignment of the powers exercised by voters, journalists, executives, and government officials should not be done lightly.  But in cases when there is an extensive track record of incompetence or irresponsibility in the handling of serious decisionmaking duties, it may be reasonable to make adjustments to prevent further abuses of power and privilege.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) typically function independently of governments for some specified purpose.  Examples include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the World Council of Churches.

There appears to be a need for an NGO capable of addressing the problems of failed countries reliably.  For assorted political reasons, NATO, the United Nations, and other transnational organizations lack that capacity.

An example of a failed state (or worse) appears in the Central African Republic, which “has become virtually a phantom state, lacking any meaningful institutional capacity at least since the fall of Emperor Bokassa in 1979,” according to an organization quoted in The Economist (Jan. 26, 2008).

Involvement of any single government (e.g., the U.S.) can be problematic in situations where the people of a given country distrust that would-be intervenor’s motivations (its religion, say, or its military or monetary intentions).  An NGO with a reputation for focusing upon the needs of its clients could avoid that objection.

The needed NGO would have the purpose of moving into a failed state, taking control, establishing basic institutions and infrastructure, and retaining control for a period (e.g., 20 years) sufficient to support long-term stability.  The NGO would thus be a governmental organization, in the sense of setting up and running a complete functioning government and, very gradually, handing off the control of that government to the people of that country.  But it would still be an NGO, in the sense that other governments would not control or steer it.

This NGO could not simultaneously tackle all failed states.  It would have to focus on one at a time.  Five years after its first apparent success, perhaps, it would be in a position to undertake a second one.  After some decades, the goal would be to reach a position in which there are no more persistently failed states.  At that time, the NGO’s core structure would become inert, capable of being resuscitated within a relatively short time (e.g., a year or two) after the emergence of some new failed state.

Such an organization could excite considerable interest from volunteers.  A reputable organization, adequately funded by (and with a long-term mandate from) a spectrum of nations, corporations, and other international actors, could supplement its first-wave military interventions with second-wave humanitarian interventions.  It might, for example, draw upon personnel commitments from various nations’ armies and Peace Corps-style organizations.

Someday, after developing and establishing its capabilities and methods in relatively manageable contexts, this NGO could conceivably be positioned to address long-running problems in such complex settings as Afghanistan.  Such a development could alter and potentially reduce the number of instances in which various nations consider unilateral military action essential.

The United States retained its predominant role in the world for a period of about one complete lifetime — that is, from about 1945 to about 2015.  Many of the things for which its people prided itself were cultural in nature.

Examples include innovative forms of music and literature.  The general themes of isolation, distrust, confusion, and loneliness characteristic of much American culture appeared in, for instance, an often inward-looking musical preoccupation with failed romantic relationships.  Those themes were also evident in a concept of lodging in which each family would live alone, separated from its neighbors in sometimes extreme ways (e.g., locked doors, barricades, and even the use of deadly force against intruders).  As a third example, those isolationist cultural themes manifested themselves in American concepts of “government” and “economics,” both of which referred to various aspects of a uniquely confused and wasteful (albeit well-intended) approach to social steering.

Although these sorts of cultural achievements seem idiosyncratic and terrible to us now, they did address felt needs experienced by people living in that country at that time.  As such, they are best understood and appreciated for the elements of rationality that did exist in them, under the circumstances in which they came about.  Nonetheless, among the many ways in which the U.S. influenced the world, it seems clear at this point that the most important one was its spread of the English language throughout the world.

That language originated, of course, in England.  As such, it was not a unique American invention, and was not necessarily the first thing in which a typical American of the period might have taken pride.  Americans were much more likely to talk about their political ideals, many of which drew upon concepts of freedom compatible with the isolation and extreme individuality just mentioned.

An American of the 20th century would tend to consider those American ideals eternal and valuable to all.  Such a person would not ordinarily admit that the various “rights” (i.e., freedoms) were fluctuating, negotiated, contingent, potentially dangerous, or anything of the sort.  This American stance often alienated people from other cultures, who did not or would not embrace American hyperindividualism and therefore did not place the same premium upon the American “rights.”
Thus, while the ideals certainly were thought-provoking and influential, they were not ultimately very enduring or useful across cultures.  In any case, the ideals tended to be based upon the work of European (especially English) thinkers.  Thus, it was the language that America took throughout the world, that facilitated American power, and that proved to be that society’s most enduring contribution to global peace and prosperity.

There are all these wonderful software gizmos in the world. So many of them are free, and so many of the free ones are so useful that it is just a shame to let their creators go without significant financial compensation.

There needs to be a freeware registration scheme, available for software (including e.g., Firefox add-ons) and also, perhaps, for other free works (e.g., e-books made available without charge), that will facilitate pay to those creative types.

This is an honor-system arrangement. I honestly do want to give those people a little something; I just don’t get around to it, or it seems like I might already have paid this guy once, or I’m not sure how much I’m supposed to donate, or how much payment is justified for my level of usage.

A little application, running on my computer, keeps track of how often I use the program. If I keep using it, say, several times a week, over a period of a month or more, the app asks me if I’d like to add the program’s creator to the list of people who deserve a little something from me.

These settings are all user-configurable, though I also have the option of just saying to hell with it, charge me $1 per day (or 50 cents, or whatever) and send it to some worthy soul whose stuff I have been using shamelessly. A list is kept somewhere, and I have the option of checking it and revoking payment in case a certain item turned out to be useless after I paid for it. (The deduction may have to come from some later user’s payment.)

In short, I sign up for the program, I designate my contribution level, I install the tracking app, I check the log once in a while, to see who I’ve been paying, but otherwise I contribute to the development of freeware without having to devote any time to it. Just the thing for busy but well-meaning people.