I've been busy with a deadline the past few weeks, and the hellish amount of effort, and the stuff happening in that time gave me this idea. Let me start by saying that in the world of Computer Science, there are all kinds of solutions to problems, but they usually end up being classified - rather informally - into ideal and practical solutions. For example, you can propose complicated algorithms for problems which are amazingly fast, but no one will ever implement them because they're so complicated. On the other hand, people will be more amenable to using quick and dirty solutions simply because they're easy to use. And this is something I see happening in the real world too.
The key lies in understanding that ideal solutions may not be practical, in the real world too. They make assumptions and simplifications that just don't hold up in the real world. So, we end up creating practical solutions that are close to the ideal solution, but not quite there. This is especially true of problems which are very complex, where an ideal solution requires just too much. Take equality for example. The ideal solution is to ensure there is no discrimination in any sphere of life, based on any factor. But, we all know some of these are buried very deep, either because of the way we are, or because of the environment we grew up in. Now, I've yet to see an example where training can overcome such deeply buried views. Which means that equality isn't a problem which can be practically solved within a generation, no matter what the change proposed. In fact, since how we're raised contributes significantly to this, I'll be a little stingier and claim that a few generations are needed before any proposed changes creep into the nurture process. Which means the war for equality is something that's going to yield changes over a century span, rather than, lets say, a 5 year span. Which makes it fairly disheartening for anyone fighting for it. But, it's important to understand that the temporary 'equilibrium' that we achieve during that century depends a lot on how much we strive for the ideal solution.
Let me go on a tangent for a bit and explain the law of thermodynamic equilibrium. Don't get scared of it, all I care about it in this context is that if you have two sources of temperature, the equilibrium temperature depends on both the sources. This might seem like a fairly simple thing, but it has massive implications, particularly when you're trying to do things like insulate your house for the winter, or cool it in the summer. I'll leave the technical details aside, just point out that this is why air conditioners are rated for a particular range of temperatures, if it gets too hot, they just can't work if they haven't been designed for it.
Getting back, how this tangent applies to the "real" world is that how hard activists fight for equality right now, has a direct consequence on what the temporary fix we get for it. Which is why there are so many lobbying firms that get so much money. If not for any reason, but simply to affect a temporary solution, because most people can see how things will go in the long term. The particular example I'll use here is fairly contentious, so I'll try to stick to logic and avoid getting into opinions, particularly my own.
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about gay marriage, the equality of marriage and the whole concept of marriage as a whole. Both sides argue over the fairness of their side and how not following their view would be detrimental to the world as a whole. But, arguing over what the government considers as marriage should only begin after one looks at the history of why the government got into the business of noting who married whom. This goes back to medieval times, when there weren't really governments but lots of lords and kinds who ruled their fiefdoms. The big problem was who gets the property or any belongings of a person when they died, and how to avoid quarrels of any such sort. Ideally this was also meant to resolve matters of succession, but history is littered with examples where the powerful simply chose to overlook the laws. But, in most cases, this helped. The person who was legally married to the deceased got dibs, i.e. their offspring were legal heirs, and the others, bastards. Legal marriage was attested to by the lord or king, whoever ruled the land. Such attestation was important to prevent impostors, not just in matters of property, but also the profession. This is exactly how surnames associated with jobs arose, and sadly enough, the caste system. But clearly the original reason for a ruling body or government recognizing marriage was to ensure that the rights of the loved ones of the deceased (or living) was maintained and free from challenge by the rest of society. This idea stood the test of time, which should give it some measure of sanity, in as much it must have been developed by some leading minds of the time. Since in USA (where this discussion is taking place), the founding fathers are considered paragons of reason and virtue, it is logical to consider the people who came up with the idea of registering marriages, as smart enough. Going along the same argument, this would imply that the definition of marriage as understood by a government should be based purely on how it might help matters of protecting the rights of a person and their loved ones, particularly taxes, inheritance etc. That should imply that the government should not really care if this union is with a man, woman, or any other being or thing. As long as the person or persons referred can be transferred ownership of property without any ambiguity, the government should be perfectly fine with it.
Yes, I realize my argument implies that gay marriage should be allowed. And I do concede that it assumes the separation of church and state. But that's where my logic led me, I'd be happy to change it if someone shows me the flaw there. And if you're wondering where did the ideal v.s. practical theme go, here it is. The solution I've presented is ideal, because it's based on a dispassionate logical understanding. We as humans are not so, we have deeply ingrained prejudices which affect our decision making. Thus I don't expect gay marriage protagonists to win soon. As in I do expect they will get some legal victories soon, but a true adoption won't happen until people's prejudices are wiped out, and that's something that can't happen until the next generation. Even worse, it'll take ever longer for this idea to precipitate to other countries, cause they're a little further back on this change totem pole.
To conclude this rather long and rambling post, let me just say that the extreme protagonists on either side need to keep up their battle cries, no matter what their cause is. Cause how hard you push makes a dent, on both the short-term and long-term scales. And even if you don't see the change you want quite yet, take heart in the fact that your next generation will, thanks to your efforts.
The key lies in understanding that ideal solutions may not be practical, in the real world too. They make assumptions and simplifications that just don't hold up in the real world. So, we end up creating practical solutions that are close to the ideal solution, but not quite there. This is especially true of problems which are very complex, where an ideal solution requires just too much. Take equality for example. The ideal solution is to ensure there is no discrimination in any sphere of life, based on any factor. But, we all know some of these are buried very deep, either because of the way we are, or because of the environment we grew up in. Now, I've yet to see an example where training can overcome such deeply buried views. Which means that equality isn't a problem which can be practically solved within a generation, no matter what the change proposed. In fact, since how we're raised contributes significantly to this, I'll be a little stingier and claim that a few generations are needed before any proposed changes creep into the nurture process. Which means the war for equality is something that's going to yield changes over a century span, rather than, lets say, a 5 year span. Which makes it fairly disheartening for anyone fighting for it. But, it's important to understand that the temporary 'equilibrium' that we achieve during that century depends a lot on how much we strive for the ideal solution.
Let me go on a tangent for a bit and explain the law of thermodynamic equilibrium. Don't get scared of it, all I care about it in this context is that if you have two sources of temperature, the equilibrium temperature depends on both the sources. This might seem like a fairly simple thing, but it has massive implications, particularly when you're trying to do things like insulate your house for the winter, or cool it in the summer. I'll leave the technical details aside, just point out that this is why air conditioners are rated for a particular range of temperatures, if it gets too hot, they just can't work if they haven't been designed for it.
Getting back, how this tangent applies to the "real" world is that how hard activists fight for equality right now, has a direct consequence on what the temporary fix we get for it. Which is why there are so many lobbying firms that get so much money. If not for any reason, but simply to affect a temporary solution, because most people can see how things will go in the long term. The particular example I'll use here is fairly contentious, so I'll try to stick to logic and avoid getting into opinions, particularly my own.
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about gay marriage, the equality of marriage and the whole concept of marriage as a whole. Both sides argue over the fairness of their side and how not following their view would be detrimental to the world as a whole. But, arguing over what the government considers as marriage should only begin after one looks at the history of why the government got into the business of noting who married whom. This goes back to medieval times, when there weren't really governments but lots of lords and kinds who ruled their fiefdoms. The big problem was who gets the property or any belongings of a person when they died, and how to avoid quarrels of any such sort. Ideally this was also meant to resolve matters of succession, but history is littered with examples where the powerful simply chose to overlook the laws. But, in most cases, this helped. The person who was legally married to the deceased got dibs, i.e. their offspring were legal heirs, and the others, bastards. Legal marriage was attested to by the lord or king, whoever ruled the land. Such attestation was important to prevent impostors, not just in matters of property, but also the profession. This is exactly how surnames associated with jobs arose, and sadly enough, the caste system. But clearly the original reason for a ruling body or government recognizing marriage was to ensure that the rights of the loved ones of the deceased (or living) was maintained and free from challenge by the rest of society. This idea stood the test of time, which should give it some measure of sanity, in as much it must have been developed by some leading minds of the time. Since in USA (where this discussion is taking place), the founding fathers are considered paragons of reason and virtue, it is logical to consider the people who came up with the idea of registering marriages, as smart enough. Going along the same argument, this would imply that the definition of marriage as understood by a government should be based purely on how it might help matters of protecting the rights of a person and their loved ones, particularly taxes, inheritance etc. That should imply that the government should not really care if this union is with a man, woman, or any other being or thing. As long as the person or persons referred can be transferred ownership of property without any ambiguity, the government should be perfectly fine with it.
Yes, I realize my argument implies that gay marriage should be allowed. And I do concede that it assumes the separation of church and state. But that's where my logic led me, I'd be happy to change it if someone shows me the flaw there. And if you're wondering where did the ideal v.s. practical theme go, here it is. The solution I've presented is ideal, because it's based on a dispassionate logical understanding. We as humans are not so, we have deeply ingrained prejudices which affect our decision making. Thus I don't expect gay marriage protagonists to win soon. As in I do expect they will get some legal victories soon, but a true adoption won't happen until people's prejudices are wiped out, and that's something that can't happen until the next generation. Even worse, it'll take ever longer for this idea to precipitate to other countries, cause they're a little further back on this change totem pole.
To conclude this rather long and rambling post, let me just say that the extreme protagonists on either side need to keep up their battle cries, no matter what their cause is. Cause how hard you push makes a dent, on both the short-term and long-term scales. And even if you don't see the change you want quite yet, take heart in the fact that your next generation will, thanks to your efforts.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment