(this is the fifth in a series of essays which will carry the same title so that you can follow along easily if you should so choose.)
We were left in the last installment of this series contemplating the ever increasing pace of technological change and the increasing complexity of the effects of that change, and wondering if there was some way in which we might be able to manage that change. We do have models from our past on how to approach problems of incredible complexity and whose future outcome is but a faint glimmer beyond the horizon. In the late 1950’s as the space race was in full stride, there was a large and growing body of information and a sense of where the future might lie. We imagined many possible outcomes, many possible impacts ranging from the geopolitical to the mundane, from mutually assured destruction to tail fins and “Rocket 8” engine of the 1959 Oldsmobile. Simply trying to find a way to coalesce all of the thoughts about rocket and space technology into something that would resemble a coherent policy seemed insurmountable. Until a president expressed a clear intention that would become the frame around which all else could be built. On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy addressed the Congress of the United States.
“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
What an audacious declaration. There was no budget for this, no plan. Nothing of this scope on this scale had ever been attempted. But the intention was clear. Yes, there were ancillary motives being addressed. Everything from political propaganda to the investments in basic research and training the next generation of engineers to drive a global economy. Not the least of which was to create a culture of innovation, developing answers to problems never before considered and with the understanding that those answers would also be the solution to questions that we would not ask until far into the future. It was the distillation of the idea into a single crystalline core that enabled that challenge to operate as a touchstone throughout the entirety of that effort. Everything would be measured against its ability to help move forward towards that goal. It gave clarity and immediacy to the efforts. But it would also require a combination of talents and abilities that had never before been joined in common purpose. Process would matter.
One of the keys to creating the “process whereby” was the readily apparent realization that there was no one and no one organization who alone possessed the talent and resource to achieve the goal. It would have to be a collaborative effort. Fortunately, the primary issues were the deficits in the areas of science and technology that had to be overcome in order to be successful, and so there was an existing model of collaboration that could be used to organize the efforts, that of the scientific method and the ethics of the scientific community. As each contractor had to rely upon the data furnished by other contractors to make sure that each component melded seamlessly into the whole of the process, it was essential that hypotheses were clearly understood, experiments well designed to accumulate data, that the results be repeatable, that data integrity was maintained and analyzed without prejudice or preconception and that conclusions would subjected to peer review. And as was seen throughout the process, mistakes were made, errors encountered, but it stands today as one of the few large scale efforts basically free from efforts to deceive. It is a combination of the long standing ethical standards of the community of science and the stakes at risk in this particular effort that led to an unbelievable record of success.
How can this past inform our future? Is there within this experience the seeds of an approach to the problems that we face today? Can we set out with a clear intention and a sound process to attract social needs? Is the model of the scientific community one that can be adapted to tackle problems that may not be technological in nature? Can I apply the scientific model to the question of immigration? Would it be helpful to use this model to answer questions about voting and democracy itself?
The key to managing change, to guiding our future, lies in intention. We have to be honest about our intention before we even begin to act. The statement of intent doesn’t necessarily have to be time related… not everything needs a “best used by” date to be effective. We can measure successful completion by other measures. We can state an intention that we will create policies and write laws that support the statement that “Every person within the borders of the United States is entitled to the protections of citizenship, but all within these borders must honor the responsibilities of citizenship if they are to exercise the privileges that are granted by citizenship.” It is understood that there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of laws that would have to be written or rewritten to bring them into accord with that intention. But that statement would exist as both goal and measure of laws as they are reviewed, revised, eliminated or created. And in each case, drawing broadly upon the method and ethics of the scientific community would be required. Hard data, assembled without prejudice, should be used to inform discussion. That data must be verifiable, the analysis done in an objective manner and without preconception, and that there must be no attempt to deceive or to prejudice an outcome.
Can this idea of a clear intention/sound process really work outside of the scientific community? There are contemporary examples of what happens when intention is not clearly stated, or worse yet, stated deceptively. Take trade agreements for example. Most trade pacts are actually about protecting the sovereignty of nation states. They are often undertaken between partner of unequal wealth, and so almost always involve a transfer of wealth in order to bring the two economies into better balance. Forget the moral and ethical arguments about global distribution of wealth, it is the desire to protect their particular system of advantages and disadvantages for participants in their economies that drives countries to negotiate trade pacts. NAFTA is an interesting case, as it was a three party agreement in which the United States had two partners who had very different needs and desires. In the case of Canada, we had a partner very similar in culture and economic structure to ourselves. The elements of the agreement between us was primarily to expand upon the advantages in each country’s economy, with the negotiations primarily around economic issues without concern to national security.
With Mexico, however, the disparities in culture and economic strength made the negotiations necessary from a national security issue as well. At the time the agreement was reached, Mexico was a failing economy on the brink of collapse. If it had collapsed, there would have been economic conditions in Mexico that might have caused a wave of economic refugees across a long and virtually indefensible border. It would also have blown a big hole into the United State’s economy due to the losses on investments in Mexico by United States investment bankers. Would Mexico’s financial collapse have been enough to cause dissolution into chaos and violence? If so, how would we protect assets in Mexico whose ownership was held by U S citizens? As a result of these concerns, this part of the treaty focussed more on creating economic benefit for Mexico in order to protect American investments and security than to protect a system of advantages in either country. It was an intentional transfer of wealth in order to shore up that economy. The measure of how well that worked is shown by the fact the pact is now seen as unfair to the United States. It has provided more benefit to the Mexican economy than to our own. Well, that is what was intended. It was successful.
However, time marches on. The desired effects of the trade pact caused structural changes in the Mexican economy. The portion of American capital in Mexico changed, their economy strengthened, and now the economic balance is much different than it was before. It is because of NAFTA’s success, not its failure that it should be re-negotiated. It should be re-negotiated to help shape the future by reflecting today’s conditions, not the conditions of 1990. If the intention of pact were made clear, rather than cherry-picked to provide campaign propaganda, that would be a great place to start discussions of international trade. And we must be honest and thorough in how we gather and examine data to make our analysis of the effects of trade agreements.
The heat that exists in the discussions of trade pacts today is largely the result of dishonesty in recounting the history of how and why NAFTA was created and what its intention was. The argument that it “stole away” the “good factory jobs” in the United states is a convenient falsehood used to appeal to the emotions of those for whom change is a fearful thing. The truth is that when technology changes; it changes everything. It is a strange coincidence (though I am not aware of any particular linkage) that the technology bubble in Silicon Valley was concurrent with the first decade of NAFTA. Strange, because it was the explosion of knowledge in digital technologies that created the assembly line automatons that have replaced factory workers. It is not the factory workers in Mexico that took "your" job. It was change. But a dispassionate look at the data around technological advancement and its impact on the economy and the work environment would not have provided the easy fire of "I'm going to bring back the jobs. Where does the fire in that statement come from? From frustration born of the innate knowledge that the statement is inconsistent with what we know of life. That statement expresses a desire that simply cannot be fulfilled, as we can never" go backwards in time." Everyone who harbors a single regret in life knows that.
“I’m going to bring back the jobs” is not a clear intention, as the person who makes that statement knows that those jobs don’t exist anymore. It is a falsehood used as an emotional tool. A clear intention would be more on the order of “We are going to build an economy that respects and values the talents and efforts of the American worker, and that insures that they will have the means to raise and educate the next generation so that their children might inherit a better world than the one we were born into.” A sound process would involve all departments of government, educational institutions, and the business community in a way where the scientific method and its ethic were employed to reach that goal.
So. Back to image at the top of the page. It is a reminder that we can aspire to and know how to do great things. But there is another thing about rockets. They are the quintessential image drawn upon to explain Newton's Third Law of Motion; that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And in this series, the next installment will take a sidestep to look at reactionary forces and what is needed along with a clear intention and a sound process if we are to shape the future.
The previous postings in this series are, in order: