A Commentary by Son of Bastiat
“Its
author maintains that western suicidal tendencies lie not so much in the lack
of resources or military
power, but through an erosion of intellectual, moral and spiritual factors
abundant in modern western society and the mainstay of liberal psychology”
[James Burnham’s 1964classic, SUICIDE OF THE WEST, remains a startling account on the nature of the
modern era. It offers a profound, in depth analysis of what is happening in the
world today by putting into focus the intangible, often vague doctrine of
American liberalism. It parallels the loosely defined liberal ideology rampant
in American government and institutions, with the ebb, flow, growth and climax
and the eventual decline and death of both ancient and modern civilizations.
Gateway Editions Review].
This essay, the second on the author’s research into
societal decline and self-annihilation, expands the themes that were explored
in his first essay on America’s
welfare state catastrophe (“America’s
Suicide Attempt by Paul Johnson”}. It broadens their application beyond America to include
entire societies as well (“Suicide of the
West by J. Burnham”). Why be preoccupied with morbid topics such as
societies in decline? Answer: Because it turns out that a common theme
permeates the largely unconscious act of terminating country and societal
existence: moral cowardice and inner rot. The implosion of the Welfare State
and the decay of Western societies are phenomena with deep moral roots. This
essay argues that the RH Bill is but another manifestation of this deeply
seated death wish that leads to societal suicide.
Population Control as a Systems Error Tragedy
Controlling population growth is societal suicide? But wait,
aren’t the methods of population control (from contraception to abortion all
the way down to euthanasia) precisely used to keep society from “eating its
seed” in order to ensure its survival and progress, which is the antithesis of
self-destruction? It isn’t paradoxical for a society to ensure survival by
killing its own. Like the neutron bomb that can kill people while keeping their
homes and buildings intact, survival decisions premised on resource intake and
outgo calculations are based on a cynical and depraved view of human nature.
What looks rational among non-living ecologies such as factories or cities does
not apply to human populations and similar self-aware organisms which are at
root, complex, dynamic and adaptive. This tragedy that lies at the root of all
Malthusian-type analysis is also based on a flawed conceptual understanding of
systems.
Complex systems are usually analyzed by simplifying their
underlying structure, a process of successive reduction by taking away parts or
relationships and variables that a systems analyst considers irrelevant to the
goal at hand (in the case of population, some decision rule that maximizes
utility under a resource constraint). There is nothing odd with organisms
limiting the scope of their efforts to make sense of the complex world, if
simplification is done to conserve energy. Where complications arise is when
the basic reductive impulse comes from outside so that values external to the
system primarily determine which factors are ”extraneous” or which variables
are “irrelevant” to a goal that may not be compatible with the system’s own.
Known as “the outside observer problem”, such arbitrary exclusions result in
models wherein observers’ biases and not members’ values drive the system’s
observed behavior. While all representations of reality reflect both the
conscious or subconscious biases of their observers, models that are
deliberately tweaked by policy incentives in specified directions will tend to
reflect less perfect correspondence between internal behavior and external
perceptions. The trouble arises when such flawed models are claimed to
“objectively represent” reality and employed as basis for policy decisions,
here a policy to control population. Few call out such travesty for the
intellectual dishonesty that it is.
Far from being mere intellectual dross, the “verifiability”
of claims is the stuff of debate between logical positivists (extreme
empiricists for whom naked claims that cannot be verified are meaningless); and
the modern philosophers of science such as Kuhn (for whom scientific methods
cannot verify the truth due to the observer bias and the fact that cultural and
institutional factors influence perceptions of what is claimed as truth).
Replace “scientific method” with “statistical tests” and one can grasp the
enormity of this policy depravity that in the US now snuffs out the life of an
unborn child every 100 seconds, at which rate an entire society turns over in
less than five years. Ironically a policy promulgated to keep society from
“wasting its seed” is self-annihilating itself.
The Harmful Effects of Erroneous Policies
If this is correct then propositions like “reducing population growth is a requisite of
economic progress” or positive claims such as “population increases consumption and hence retards growth by reducing
capital accumulation”; or “artificial
methods of reproduction such as sterilization allows families to raise better quality
offspring” all the way to the most sophisticated demographic models that
are the basis of official population control policies have to be seen for what
they are in essence – incomplete, inaccurate and simplistic expressions of very
complex relationships that mostly reflect the biases of their advocates. They
produce misleading conclusions about the impacts of population control policies
on societies by exaggerating their positive effects on economic variables while
underestimating or even omitting their negative long run influences on
intangible factors crucial to societal balance and growth.
If this is not devastating enough, the coup de grace is
delivered by nonlinear dynamical systems theory: the fact is that statistical
correlations are little more than exercises in ferreting out significant
(p<0.05) reduced form relationships from historically sampled data. But live
systems like human populations are not only dynamically reactive but
anticipatory, meaning that they are capable of purposeful adjustment to varying
stimulus in un-anticipatable (or even contrarian) ways that are rarely
reflected in historical data used by correlation models. It is this adaptive
behavior of dynamic living systems, especially their unpredictable non-linear
responses to stimuli, that makes statistical models so woefully inadequate in
establishing cause and effect relationships. The effects show up in
“irrational” and “outlier” behaviors that are filtered out as atypical data: savings-poor
families that find ways to send all children to school, rich taxpayers that
bust up revenue forecasts as marginal tax rates rise; countries whose GDPs
increase as their informal sectors expand, welfare programs that nurture low
productivity and anti-social values. It is these “atypical” system behaviors
caused by the arbitrary exclusion of unknown factors that renders ludicrous the
claimed power of population control policy failures in explaining the relative
disparities in economic performance between the Philippines and its neighbors;
such simplistic models could never have foreseen the grave disaster that
aggressive population control could have brought the Philippines to if 30 years
later it had no skilled labor to export. Policy technicians are better served
by reading less econometric books and more philosophical tracts by philosophers
such as Popper who believed that rational methods cannot validate the truth
value of models and propositions involving human beings whose decisions are
intertwined with reason and motivations that can never be satisfactorily
captured by such weak models. [Incidentally Popper also offered the same
“falsifiability” thesis as basis for claim testing which econometrics deals
poorly with, being about hypothesis testing but not about decisions].
The Ideology that Underpins this Intellectual Error
Statistical methods that do not adequately capture the
irrational quirks of dynamically adaptive systems merely probabilistically
model traits that dispose individuals towards potential behavioral tendencies;
as such they capture traits that dispose, but not sufficiently explain why they
actualize specific behaviors. The set of beliefs, philosophies and world views
that prime such observed behaviors is at its core an ideology that traces its
roots to a fundamental way of thinking about reality that descended from Post
Renaissance thought. It goes by the term Rationalism, and its modern offspring
called Liberalism.
In contrast to the traditional
(Aristotelian/Thomistic/Augustinian) view of human nature which had a permanent
and unchanging essence; where man is corrupt and limited in potential, so that
his fate is tragic unless saved by Divine Intervention, Rationalism/Liberalism,
(to quote Burnham) – “holds that there is nothing intrinsic to the nature of
man that makes it impossible for human society to achieve the goals of peace,
freedom, justice and well-being which liberals define as (the accoutrements) of
a “good society”. Burnham elaborates on Liberalism by quoting Oakeshott –
“Liberalism is confident that reason and rational science, without appeal to
revelation, faith, custom or intuition can both comprehend the world and solve
its problems”. . . “free from obligations to any authority save for the
authority of reason . . He is at once skeptical (because there is almost no
opinion, habit, belief, nothing so firmly rooted and so widely held that he
hesitates to question; and optimistic (because the rationalist never doubts the
power of his reason to determine the worth of a thing, the truth of an opinion
or propriety of an action”.
What follows from such a mistaken view of human nature is
obvious (again quoting Burnham) – “the peaceful, just, free, virtuous,
prosperous society is inevitable or scheduled to come on condition that human
beings behave rationally by accepting the liberal ideology, program and
leadership” (emphasis and italics supplied by the author). Policies to
keep population in check, whether through preventing conception, abortion,
passive deprivation or euthanasia, are examples of programs that liberals want
to impose on societies (especially its vulnerable members) as way to achieve
the “good society” outcome. As explained above such conclusions are both
methodologically flawed but epistemologically unsound, and now are shown to be
the product of an ideology that seeks to remake societies in its own vision
regardless of what the consequences to overall society are. Such is the death
wish that ideology buys.
How Western Societies Really Die
“What they are saying
to us today is that if you want to keep the Federal government open you have to
throw women under the bus” is how Sen. P. Murray (D., Wash) depicted the
contentious budget debates among Republicans and Democrats in which funding for
Planned Parenthood (a pro-abortion group) came close to shutting down the US
government. The terrible fact is that the economic future of the US is held
hostage by a flawed issue that doesn’t even represent 0.15 % of a budget that
liberal policies have larded with entitlements so that cuts of 1-2 % are now
called “draconian”. If the US
economy does implode it will not be from wars or alien invasions, it will be
from a tragic decision to kill unborn babies.
No comments:
Post a Comment